The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Points of Order: All-Ireland Football Championships

Mr Speaker: Two Members wish to make points of order. I will take Mr ONeill’s, and then Mr John Kelly’s.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Mr Speaker, would it be in order for you, as Speaker of the House, to send your congratulations to the victorious Armagh senior and Derry minor football teams on their magnificent successes at the weekend? Could I, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, arrange with you a reception to recognise those wonderful achievements?

Mr Speaker: Mr Kelly, does your point of order concern the same issue?

Mr John Kelly: Yes. Will the Assembly send a message of congratulations to the Armagh senior county team, since it is based in the First Minister’s constituency, and to the Derry minor team? We must not forget that the Derry minor team won the all-Ireland minor championship yesterday. Will you send congratulations to both teams?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: Does your point of order concern the same issue, Dr Paisley?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Yes. People in this House are greatly saddened by what took place in Lurgan yesterday when the supporters, who were supposed to be celebrating their victory, not only attacked the police and the Protestant people, but, to add insult to injury, hung a tricolour on the war memorial. On the previous night, there was a savage attack on places of worship in Keady. The Orange hall was painted over, the gospel hall’s windows were smashed, a beautiful stained glass window in the Presbyterian church was smashed, and the Church of Ireland church was also smashed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Paisley, I ask you to come to the point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: This should also be made public at this time.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Is it on the same issue?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: It would be sensible to have whatever points of order there are on this issue at the same time. However, I must emphasise that we cannot turn this into a debate.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I wish to correct the erroneous statement made by the Member. I represent Upper Bann. I come from Lurgan and know the situation that occurred there yesterday. The fact is that GAA supporters were attacked by a Unionist crowd. The PSNI — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: We need to correct an erroneous statement. I come from Lurgan and know the situation on the ground. GAA supporters were attacked by a Loyalist/ Unionist mob. The PSNI failed to protect GAA supporters in Lurgan yesterday.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to take her seat. Order.
It is quite clear that we have gone well beyond points of order and that we are now into points of disorder in the Chamber.
I will advise the House of my ruling on the issue. First, it is entirely in order for the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to bring to his Committee the question of whether it would like to hold a reception to celebrate this event. He knows from previous occasions that if the Committee wants to hold such a reception, but does not have the resources to do so, and he approaches the Speaker’s Office, he will get the same positive response to this particular request, should it come from the Committee, as he had in respect of previous requests. That is the appropriate way to deal with this.
Responding to Mr Kelly’s point of order, it is not possible for the Assembly to make such a gesture without having a motion for debate. The Member may wish to put down such a motion, but it would, of course, lose something in terms of the timing.
Dr Paisley mentioned some concerns, and Dr O’Hagan mentioned her concerns about the same point. I ask that Members compose themselves, not only on this matter, but also on the general business of the day. It is a funny old place here. I do not suppose I imagined that I would find Nationalists demanding that Stormont have orange flags outside it, and Unionists expressing a degree of concern about that. However, that would be the circumstance if the Armagh team were here celebrating.
I ask members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to consider if that is the appropriate context in which to deal with this matter. If the Committee has a view on this, and comes to the Speaker’s Office, it will receive the usual generous reply that my Office tries to give to these matters.

Mr Seamus Close: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not wonderful —

Mr Speaker: Is this point of order on the same issue?

Mr Seamus Close: It is just an observation. Is it not wonderful how sport —

Mr Speaker: Order. I know the Member to be an imaginative and creative man, which is why I checked in advance.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Is it on the same matter, Mr Kelly?

Mr John Kelly: It is.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid I cannot take any further points of order on this matter.

Mr John Kelly: I was going to suggest that orange flags —

Mr Speaker: Order. The previous Member was close, but you are not. You are not getting a further point of order.

Speaker’s Business: Assembly Commission Visit to Ottawa and Quebec

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I will be absent from the plenary sittings of the Assembly next week.

Several Members: Aah.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. At the invitation of the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament, I will be leading an Assembly Commission visit to Ottawa and Quebec.

Point of Order: Scheduling of Assembly Business

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I assume it is on a different point.

Mr Peter Robinson: I assure you that it has nothing to do with Armagh, though Armagh will be waiting to hear your response. On 2 September 2002, my Colleagues and I tabled a motion that called for the dissolution of the Assembly to enable an election to take place. We recognised then — as most of the House will recognise now — that the Assembly will lurch from one crisis to another because of the shenanigans in the Ulster Unionist Party.
I understand that to date, the Business Committee has set itself up to vote down the hearing of that debate simply on a political basis. As there is a statutory basis for the motion, Mr Speaker, surely you can use your influence to ensure that a large group of Members who wish to see a motion debated can have the opportunity to do so, and then we can move to elections, negotiations and the possibility of real, stable political structures in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: It is clearly a matter for the Business Committee to decide what goes on the Order Paper as far as private Members’ business is concerned. In the past, I have indicated that — [Interruption]. Order.
When motions are set down and have some statutory basis, which I think is the reference that the Member is making, if there is some reasonable chance of success as evidenced by support within the Business Committee to have the debate, one, as the Chairperson, might well urge the Business Committee to consider the matter. I cannot do more. I am the one member of the Business Committee who does not have a vote, and I do not seek to influence it politically in any way, except to do what is wise for the general well-being of the Assembly.
Of course, the Member’s Colleagues are at liberty to raise the matter in the Business Committee, which will meet tomorrow to consider next week’s business. Therefore, it will be a matter for the Business Committee to consider. I dare say that its members will consider the question, taking full account, as business managers, of what they judge to be the likely approach of their parties to the matter. That is not a wholly unreasonable way for them to consider the question.

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am more concerned after listening to your response. Surely it can never be the Business Committee’s role to make judgements either on the outcome of a motion or on the basis of whether it likes or agrees with the principles behind it. The Assembly has the right to consider matters and reject them if so desired. The Business Committee does not have a veto in determining which particular political party policies should be allowed to be aired in the Chamber.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Order. Nor did I suggest that that was the case. Since there is a long list of no-day-named motions, the Member is asking the Business Committee to put the particular motion from his party ahead of other motions. I am saying that as far as the Business Committee is concerned, I would certainly urge it to consider an extra degree of significance to motions that bear on the statutory basis of the Assembly. The Business Committee must make its own judgements.
However, I dare say that the Business Committee will make a judgement on the basis of what it believes to be the motion’s level of support. For example, since no seconder is even necessary, it would be entirely possible for a single Member to table a motion that was on a statutory matter of the type referred to. The Member would judge it not reasonable that that on its own should take precedence over everything else. Of course the Member is saying that this motion does not involve a single Member, but a significant body. In other words, he is saying that the level of support is significant. That is simply all that I am pointing out also — the level of support is significant and not unreasonably so in the mind of the Business Committee when making a judgement.
It would be wholly inappropriate to bring the discussions of the Business Committee on to the Floor. I am simply ruling on the procedural question. I trust that the Member is at least clear on the question, if not entirely happy.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I reassure the House that what you have said is exactly what happens. The Business Committee was unable to judge the level of support for the DUP motion because the DUP Chief Whip withdrew that particular motion —

Mr Speaker: Order. I interrupt the Lady at that point because she is about to discuss the conduct of the Business Committee on the Floor of the House. The Business Committee minutes — [Interruption]. Order.
The Business Committee minutes are on record and on the web site once they have been approved. It is inappropriate that further debate takes place on that issue.

Draft Programme for Government

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the draft Programme for Government 2003-2004. Following a proposal from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister the Business Committee considered the form in which the Programme for Government should be presented to the House and agreed that it should be presented in the form of a statement today. A motion to take note of the draft Programme for Government will be debated tomorrow.
The Business Committee agreed to a different form of statement. As the House is aware, statements are usually followed by a series of questions to the Minister, or Ministers, who make the statement. However, in view of the fact that the Programme for Government is a singular presentation, it was viewed as appropriate — and the proposal came from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — that party leaders should not be restricted to simply asking questions, but should have the opportunity to make a statement for up to five minutes, obviating the need for questions or response.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will make their presentation, and all parties will have an opportunity, restricted to the party leader or a nominee, to make a response lasting five minutes. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Deputy First Minister and I have pleasure in presenting to the Assembly, on behalf of the Executive, our draft Programme for Government covering the next financial year and beyond. At its meeting on Thursday 19 September, the Executive agreed a draft Programme for Government, supported by a draft Budget. We are laying that programme before the Assembly for scrutiny and for future approval after examination in Committees.
The draft Programme for Government sets out the Executive’s plans and priorities for the next few years, and will be supported by the draft Budget to be presented to the Assembly tomorrow by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Programme for Government is a detailed and comprehensive document, and Members will know that it is not a quick and easy read. We could translate the document and merely present a series of sound bites taking up a few pages, but we believe that it is important that the Assembly and others should see our plans and priorities in some detail and understand the context in which they are to be taken forward. Members should have the necessary information to carry out their role in scrutinising the document.
We have been keen to build on the progress already made as an Executive when developing this programme. We have the experience of developing and implementing two previous programmes that have been endorsed by the Assembly. We want to use that experience and build on our achievements to steer us through the months and years ahead.
We have achieved much, and there is much that we can be proud of. We have shown that we can work together across all four parties in the Administration to plan for, and deliver, good government. We have brought about real improvements in areas as diverse as education, infrastructure and the needs of children. We have demonstrated a commitment to accountability and a readiness to report openly on our progress that is unparalleled.
This is a time for commitment, not complacency. This draft programme demonstrates our commitment to deliver government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of people here. Reinvestment and reform are the twin elements at the core of this programme; they must underpin our efforts to make a difference in the years ahead. We also want to deliver real progress in tackling social exclusion, promoting sustainable development and building stronger partnerships — partnerships with local government and the social partners in influencing the development of policies and programmes and their delivery. We have highlighted in our draft Programme for Government those key themes that cut across our priorities, and we will say more about them shortly. Members will have received a copy of the document, and the chapter on investing in the future sets out further details.
Another feature of this year’s document is our wish to bring out more clearly than before the context in which our economic, social and environmental policies and programmes are developed and implemented. We should not develop new policies or continue with existing ones without a clear understanding of the economy and society, and the challenges which the Executive and Assembly face. Chapter 2 of the document sets out the current position on some key indicators, the improvements which have occurred and the problems which continue to exist. The Executive’s programme needs to address the challenges identified.
I wish now to focus on our commitments in this draft Programme for Government on investing in our infrastructure and promoting sustainable development. I also want to say something about our plans for modernising and developing public services. The Deputy First Minister will later pick up the theme of reform and also outline our work to tackle social exclusion and build partnerships.
This draft Programme for Government makes clear our commitment to delivering new and substantial investment in infrastructure. We know from the work on examining the opportunities for public-private partnerships that we have an estimated £6 billion investment deficit in that infrastructure. We must try to remedy that deficit over the next decade. The need to address that problem has been raised by Members, most recently in the debate last Monday.
Tackling that deficit is not just about bricks and mortar, it is also about standards: the standard of education in our schools; the quality of treatment in our hospitals; the quality of our drinking water and the ability of our transport network to carry people and goods safely and effectively. It is about improving the infrastructure to improve the services that we all use.
In May 2002, we announced details of a new reinvestment and reform initiative designed to address the infrastructure problems that we have identified. In July 2002, we made a start in implementing the initiative. At that point we allocated £270 million to improve key areas of infrastructure. The draft Programme for Government reflects the work to date and our plans for the years ahead. We hope that in the first year covered by the programme, we shall have a new strategic investment board in place to assist us in improving the state of our infrastructure significantly.
For example, the draft Programme for Government states our commitment to investing in the road network. We shall work to eliminate 75% of the road maintenance backlog over the period of the regional transportation strategy. We shall undertake improvements to our major routes, in particular building on our earlier commitment to upgrade the trans-European network from Larne to Newry.
We shall strengthen our energy infrastructure. The draft programme contains our proposals in those areas. We are also determined to improve the health and education estates. We have already announced our plans for the new cancer centre — a development that should result in better diagnosis, treatment and care for those living with cancer. The draft programme signals our intention to increase capacity in hospitals, providing 100 more hospital beds by March 2005 to help ease the worst pressure points.
We also set out our proposals to start more major capital improvements to primary and post-primary schools and to deliver a programme of investment to improve the state of our further education colleges. We shall also bring about improvements to our public library network.
One of the big challenges in taking forward this programme of investment is making sure it is sustainable. We have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the improvements we make to meet our needs now are not at the expense of future generations’ ability to meet their needs. That message came across very clearly at the recent world summit in South Africa.
For that reason, we identify promoting sustainable living as a theme which cuts across all the Executive’s work — in improving infrastructure and public services and in tackling poverty and social exclusion. In the draft programme we set out many commitments, which reflect that theme — for example, through investing for health and in our approach to securing a competitive economy.
On planning, for example, we wish to develop a more co-ordinated and efficient planning process that integrates our economic, social and environmental needs. That is why the draft programme commits us to modernising the planning process. We are also concerned about transport — and the draft Programme for Government highlights our determination to introduce measures to support public transport.
We recognise the need to reduce waste and tackle issues surrounding its disposal. For that reason, we have restated our intention to promote the recovery, or recycling, of 25% of all household waste by 2006.
If the principles of sustainable development need to underpin our work to address the infrastructure deficit, so too do they need to be reflected in our work to improve public services. The simple provision of more resources to improve our infrastructure will not result in the scale of change that the Executive want. That is why the focus in this draft programme is not just on reinvestment, but also on reform.
We want to deliver reform on several levels.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a general hubbub in the Chamber, which is unhelpful to Members who wish to listen to the statement. Members should restrain themselves or have their conversations in the Lobby.

Rt Hon David Trimble: First, we want to examine how to finance our work to improve infrastructure and the delivery of public services. Secondly, we want to examine how to improve public services and public administration. Thirdly, we want to reform how the public sector operates, identifying new ways of working that will create real changes.
Of course, change for change’s sake is never effective. We are determined that our driving force will be reform that brings real and measurable improvements that people can see, feel and experience. The draft Programme for Government sets out a challenging and ambitious programme that, when implemented, will bring about real change for the better. It contains many specific commitments that are supported by the draft Budget, which the Minister of Finance and Personnel will present to the Assembly tomorrow. It reflects our continuing focus on delivering progress across our five priorities in the context of the Executive’s key themes.
The programme is in draft form; it is not set in stone. We want to consult on its content with the Assembly and more widely. We look forward to hearing the views of Members in tomorrow’s debate and over the coming weeks.

Mr Mark Durkan: The draft Programme for Government represents another step forward in delivering accountable government that meets people’s needs.
We launched a consultation on the Executive’s position report on 5 June to seek views on this year’s programme. We have received responses from Committees, the Civic Forum and other interested bodies, which have helped us to develop this draft. Based on those comments, the Executive concluded that the five priorities adopted before remain valid and should be retained. They are: growing as a community; working for a healthier people; investing in education and skills; securing a competitive economy; and developing relations.
We also identified relevant sub-priorities and specific proposed actions to support our priorities. Any commitments will have to be budgeted for in the draft Budget. It is right that, in all our priorities and at the heart of this Programme for Government, we focus on reinvestment and reform. We want to deliver modern, efficient public services. That will require investment and change.
I wish to outline the areas for reform identified in the draft programme. I will also comment on our commitments on social exclusion and our work to build stronger partnerships.
The draft programme makes it clear that we must take a more innovative approach to managing and financing our infrastructure programme. The reinvestment and reform initiative has already demonstrated our desire to think differently and to challenge the traditional methods of public sector financing. We want to continue in that vein. The new strategic investment board will ensure that investment in our strategic infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that makes the most of the resources and the expertise available to us.
Our consultation on public-private partnerships (PPPs), which ended recently, is helping to shape our thinking on how to make best use of opportunities for PPPs in financing our future.
The creation of Executive programme funds has been another important innovation, and we will continue to use them to support actions to deliver progress in the five priorities. The draft Programme for Government makes it clear that there is other work to be done. Agreement must be reached on a fair rating system for Northern Ireland after the rating policy review, and we must continue to press for reform of the Barnett formula to ensure that our resources meet our needs.
We have underlined the importance that we attach to modernising government and to reform. The Executive intend to develop departmental plans to reform service delivery, including efficiency improvements and the use of assets. Those plans will be completed in the coming weeks and will feed into the departmental service delivery agreements to be developed later this year.
We want to improve the quality of our public services and the structures for delivering them and to ensure that our efforts are targeted at those most in need. The draft Programme for Government sets out several commitments that the Executive are ready to make. We will continue our work to improve health and promote healthy lifestyles, modernise our hospital services and introduce new standards of clinical governance — all the while directing resources to those most in need and most vulnerable.
The Department of Education will introduce new curricula in primary and post-primary schools that reflect the needs of our economy and society. We will also take action to ensure that young people leave school with the highest possible standards of literacy and numeracy. We will reduce the proportion of pupils in schools serving the most disadvantaged communities who leave school with no GCSEs and the number of poor attenders. The Executive intend to make changes to how the education system deals with children with special educational needs and to make sure that they can share equally in the planned improvements. The draft Programme for Government underlines the Executive’s commitment to having pupils with special educational needs educated, where possible, alongside their peers in mainstream schools.
Another important focus will be welfare reform. The Executive want to play their part in implementing reforms to the social security and pensions systems. The draft Programme for Government commits us to joining up our jobs and benefits services. By March 2004, we will have extended a new jobs and benefits service to 20 combined social security and jobcentre offices across Northern Ireland. In line with a focus on putting work at the forefront of the benefits system, we want to improve services for those seeking work. In particular, we plan to take action to tackle poor literacy and numeracy in adults by helping an extra 2,500 learners to update their essential skills.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is already implementing an ambitious programme of modernisation, focusing on the needs of farmers and the agrifood industry, e-government and the delivery of research and education. We will also implement the recommendations of the vision exercise.
The Executive want to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland provides a new opportunity to improve competitiveness and encourage investment and enterprise. The draft Programme for Government sets out our plans in that area.
We also have key decisions to take over the life of the draft Programme for Government. We must reach agreement on the right structures for our acute hospitals and post-primary schools. We want to make sure that our decisions bring about positive improvements in the quality of service.
We must also reach agreement on the structures of public administration. The draft Programme for Government conveys our intention to introduce by the end of next year a new model for public administration. Our proposals will be driven by a desire to improve the delivery of public services.
The draft Programme for Government also sets out our commitment to improve community relations and tackle division. The need to support the capacity of local communities to deal with matters of dispute or division is particularly important. Our experience in north Belfast and other areas has shown that improved relations can only develop when elected and community representatives work together. By the end of next year, we want to have in place a new policy and strategy on good relations, which will include actions and targets. We also want it to include action focused on local areas with acute community difficulties and action to support the capacity of local communities to deal with issues such as sectarian flags and graffiti.
If we are to facilitate improvements in relations and an end to the trouble on our streets, we need to focus on delivering equality of opportunity for all. One of the greatest inequalities in Northern Ireland is that which exists between the affluent and the most disadvantaged. The draft Programme for Government emphasises, therefore, our determination to tackle poverty and social exclusion. It sets out our work to evaluate and improve our policy on targeting social need. It also highlights our determination to take action to root out child poverty.
The development of a children’s fund demonstrates our commitment to supporting children in need and young people at risk, a commitment which is restated in the draft Programme for Government. It also demonstrates the value of a partnership approach: working across sectors to do the best we can for children.
The draft Programme for Government represents what we can achieve by working in partnership in Government. However, we also need to build partnerships between the Government and social partners. It is not enough simply to change the form of government: our goal must be to change the face of the Government, the face of politics and the face of our society. Nor is it sufficient to have the social partners as passive consultees. They must be active participants in the development of policy. It is only by harnessing our collective energies and insight that the soundest solutions to our problems can be found.
The promoting social inclusion initiative and the work of the Economic Development Forum show the value of involving social partners not only in consultation, but in policy formation. We must consider how that can be extended as we consult further and, ultimately, implement the Programme for Government. The draft programme indicates our readiness to do that.
As in previous years, we are also presenting the latest public service agreements (PSAs) for the eleven Departments. The PSAs will support the Executive’s priorities and commitments by setting out what is to be achieved from the Budget allocations. They reflect our commitment to openness and accountability to the Assembly and the public, and they focus on improving public services. The PSAs are in draft form, and we invite the Assembly and the Committees to examine them during the consultation period.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The draft Programme for Government is a manifesto for reinvestment and reform, a pledge to improve public services. In moving forward, our guiding principle must be the desire to deliver a better service to the public. We need to focus on delivery, on the end result and how that can be improved. However, as the First Minister has emphasised, it is a draft Programme for Government. It represents the Executive’s current thinking on their plans and priorities for the years ahead. That thinking should now be debated, discussed and, where necessary, challenged inside and outside the Chamber. On that basis, we commend the draft Programme for Government to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The draft Programme for Government is an impressive document, not least because it provides a comprehensive analysis of the problems facing Northern Ireland before attempting to outline solutions.
Page 10 shows that unemployment has fallen dramatically in the past decade, although an employability issue remains. Chart 3 on page 11 reveals a crucial economic and social problem: our level of gross domestic product (GDP) per head continues to lag seriously behind the United Kingdom and European Union averages. However, one technical but significant point is that the chart almost certainly exaggerates the extent to which the Republic of Ireland’s living standard improved compared with that of Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe in the same period.
The reinvestment and reform package mentioned in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 must be a driver to deal, at last, with the long-standing backlog in infrastructure investment, which amounts to around £6 billion. By attempting to deal with the problem, the initiative represents an act of political courage and financial wisdom.
Sub-priority 8 of ‘Growing as a Community’ identifies a role for museums. I hope that they will be able to show what is distinctive about Northern Ireland and its history, while recognising the substantial east-west links with the rest of the United Kingdom as well as the North/ South aspect. I note also the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s proposal to implement an archives policy.
My party is pleased that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will provide support for implementing the football strategy from April next year and that new training facilities will be provided in at least seven sporting areas by March 2006.
Sub-priority 1 of ‘Securing a Competitive Economy’, which deals with improving and developing infrastructure, is immensely significant for the reasons that I have already given, especially the backlog in investment that developed during the direct rule period.
That chapter’s sub-priority 2 deals with modernising the planning process. Hitherto, our planning process satisfied no one. On the one hand, developers argued that economic progress was held up by undue backlogs in the system. On the other hand, residents felt that their vital interests were being overridden. A general debate about planning processes is taking place across the UK, so Northern Ireland’s problems are not unique. However, some aspects are peculiar to this region. The Ulster Unionist Party is pleased that the planning process will be modernised.
Paragraph 1.5 of the document points out the progress and achievements made in several areas that were highlighted in previous Programmes for Government, including the expansion of higher and further education and the provision of free public transport for the elderly.
The Ulster Unionist Party supports the draft Programme for Government in the hope that it, and future programmes, will support further achievements.

Mr John Dallat: The guiding principle of this draft Programme for Government is "making a difference". Let us reflect for a moment on what that means and how it can be implemented. It means building on what the Assembly has achieved in the past four years. It means no return to the corruption that occurred during the three decades of direct rule, when deals were struck in smoke-filled rooms, and millions of pounds worth of contracts were issued without tenders, or issued to companies that did not tender the lowest bid.
It means a fundamental change to the Senior Civil Service and non-departmental public bodies. It means an end to the soirées and the flagrant abuse of credit cards. However, it means more than that: it means building on the good work of Seán Farren and Carmel Hanna to end the scandal whereby one in four people have poor levels of literacy and numeracy, so that everyone can hold his or her head high when applying for a job or seeking promotion.
I am glad that the Programme for Government addresses also the needs of students in serious debt, who are at the other end of the scale. In the past four years, access to colleges of further education and universities has been widened substantially. The threshold above which parents must pay fees has been raised and will continue to increase as a fundamental principle of the SDLP. Pressure will be continued on the British Government for improved central funds.
Will we allow those and other possibilities to be wiped out because a few weeping willows in the "No" camp, particularly the DUP, do not have the stomach to face the challenges of the future and have no alternatives to the Good Friday Agreement? Are we to turn our backs on the Health Service, which is in crisis? Are we to forget about our commitment to decentralisation and cross-border bodies, which bring untold benefits, particularly in west Belfast, Strabane, Derry and other unemployment black spots? I should think not. Those who connive behind closed doors to bring down the Assembly must rethink their actions. It does not seem to matter to them that they are creating a political vacuum, which gives the kiss of life to killer gangs that are long past their sell-by date.
The SDLP will not abandon the people to whom it made a firm promise in the Good Friday Agreement. We will fight for an extension to the free transport scheme for people over 60 years old. We will back our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in radically reforming the industry to secure the future of new and existing farmers. We will support her efforts to develop a new vision for agriculture, to improve animal health and to show the British Government that they can no longer treat farmers as they do. However, none of that will be possible if members of the Saturday morning fur-coat brigade continue to vote like turkeys for Christmas. The "No" campers do not give a damn about equality, social inclusion or unemployment black spots. [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Dallat: They seem to believe that they can turn back the clock to the good old days when they reigned supreme. We are not going back to those days: there will be no cap in hand, no begging bowl, and no subservience to our absentee landlords. Will we be left to do it alone? Those who fooled themselves at the weekend that they could turn the clock back should get real with the electorate and begin to tell them the truth. The world is moving on, and so are we, whether they like it or not. Dismantling the political structures to stop the clock is not an option. In a global world, and in a European context, partitionist politics are as dead as a dodo. Let us face the future together, rather than trying to lift the ball and run away with it. It is no longer theirs, but ours to share. If Armagh and Derry can do it, so can the Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Having listened to the interesting statement of the petty comic, we should now get down to business. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister really think that they can bluff the people of Northern Ireland with the documents that they presented today? The First Minister’s constitutional position is in jeopardy, and his party is stating, in the strongest possible manner, that things will change. We are told that the last date will be 18 January.
The First Minister told us that he was presenting his priorities for the next few years. It is quite interesting that an attempt is being made in this House to sweep the reality of the situation conveniently under the carpet and pretend that all is well when it is not.
As for Mr Dallat, he may have no respect for the electorate, but the electorate will not go away. In fact, the electorate or a Sinn Féin member in his own constituency may tell him to go away. Mr Dallat made as good a speech as any Shinner could have made in the days of absentee landlords and little fairies at the end of an Irish garden.
The report says that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will apply themselves to dealing with the troubles, but the Deputy First Minister did not have the honesty to say that the trouble lies with one member of the Executive, an active member, who takes his seat with us. The Deputy First Minister did not have the honesty to say that that member’s party is dedicated to keeping this country in turmoil. It has the arms to do it, and it has been producing the goods.
The Deputy First Minister says that they will declare war on sectarian flags. I will ask him a straight question: does he think that the Union flag is a sectarian flag? Of all the flags, it has been the Union flag that has been most attacked and removed. Is that what he is after? The people of this country know what is wrong. They have a right to demand the right to live, the right to be free from gangsters and paramilitaries, from whatever side they come, and the right to maintain their place in a democracy.
It is quite amusing to hear the Deputy First Minister talk about equality of opportunity for all. There is no equality of opportunity in our new police service because of his party’s policy that the Roman Catholic minority must have a majority over Protestants. The 50% share that is given to Protestants must also include Jews and Hindus and everyone else. There cannot be equal equality of opportunity for all, yet he unblushingly said that that great target has been set.
This House had better realise that sooner or later, no matter about the dodges of the Business Committee and no matter about the First Minister. I read carefully a statement from the First Minister that said that this would not be a fudge but that there might be flexibility. That was a good get-out. No doubt, he will have to run for shelter and quote that. We are not running for shelter. We believe in direct confrontation with the electorate. Let the electorate speak.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We have only had a limited opportunity to consider the draft Programme for Government in detail and, regrettably, even less opportunity to study this morning’s statement.
They can only be properly considered in the context of the draft Budget, the content and detail of which we await. In the past couple of years, we have become familiar with the thematic content of the Programme for Government. In fairness, most people are content with that approach. The devil is in the detail. However, it is time for the Executive to demonstrate clearly their ability to translate the identification of priority areas such as health, education and transport into "deliverables". That is how the draft programme and the accompanying Budget will be judged. The litmus test for the Executive will be their ability, or otherwise, to set aside party political interests and, on a truly collective basis, bring together and deliver on proposals for meaningful change that will make a tangible difference.
It is ironic — some may say surreal — that we are being asked to consider how the Executive propose to make a difference when they are under a cloud and in the midst of the contrived crisis into which the Ulster Unionist Party is driving the political institutions. It is difficult to reconcile what appears in the draft Programme for Government with the general political context being shaped by those in the Ulster Unionist Party who are opposed to change. How do we square the commitment to ensuring that the transfer of political power to our political institutions makes a real and positive difference to our economic and social life with the fact that one half of the Executive now wants to collapse those institutions? How do we reconcile the commitment to tackling the underinvestment that is part of the legacy of direct rule with the Unionist half of the Executive marching down the road to nowhere? How do we square the Executive’s strategic objectives to achieve equality, partnership, sustainability and prosperity with the political objectives of half of the Executive, which are based on exclusion? How should we view the commitments contained in section 8 of the draft Programme for Government? Paragraph 8.4 states:
"The Agreement provided a unique framework to develop relations within the island of Ireland."
Yet the First Minister has declared that he will, with immediate effect, act in a way that will significantly damage those institutions. Paragraph 8.4 also says that the Executive will focus on
"developing North/South relations and realise the potential for enhanced co-operation".
Paragraph 8.5 begins
"We will continue to work together with the Irish Government to realise the full potential of enhanced cross-border co-operation for mutual benefit. We will take forward co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council and in particular through the agreed areas for co-operation — (Agriculture; Education; Environment; Transport; Health; and Tourism)."
That was agreed last Thursday. Some 48 hours later, David Trimble contradicted that commitment. He negotiated and agreed with his partners on the Executive while he had in his pocket a proposal to wreck the all-Ireland institutions. When half of the Executive has adopted the policies and politics of the "No" camp, it is time for the public to ask questions.
Those are only some of the questions that will spring to people’s minds when they read the detail of the draft Programme for Government — they will think of cloud cuckoo land. When we debated the draft Programme for Government last year, it was clear that it had been developed through agreement between all the political parties against a backdrop of serious political difficulties. However, at least there was a collective approach. Today’s draft Programme for Government comes 48 hours after yet another Ulster Unionist Council meeting and against the backdrop of yet another Ulster Unionist Party threat to walk away from the institutions.
Let us be clear: Unionists are fighting a concerted campaign to frustrate and delay the required changes to our society with regard to the equality agenda, the human rights agenda, the all-Ireland agenda, criminal justice, demilitarisation and policing. Unionists have attempted to delay and dilute the progress in all those areas, which are the cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. However, my greatest concern is whether the Executive’s Programme for Government will be able to deliver on the agenda for change in the light of the political cowardice of the Unionist political leadership.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Ministers for their statement. Like other Members, I received a copy of it late this morning, so I have not had time to read it or the draft Programme for Government. However, I wish to make a few comments that I will expand on in tomorrow’s debate.
There have been real achievements in children’s issues and in health matters, such as the cancer centre. Although I do not want to undermine those achievements, the Alliance Party is once again disappointed that, in the key themes of the draft Programme for Government, community relations, which will make our society more tolerant and build on those achievements, are not apparent. I have direct experience that, over the years, community relations projects have contributed greatly towards mutual understanding and tolerance, which is tragically missing in Northern Ireland.
Stronger partnerships must be built, and not only with local government and social partners. Sub-priority 2, which should have been a full priority, states:
"We recognise that we have to deal with the very deep and painful divisions in our society after decades of conflict and that we must tackle the scourge of sectarianism, racism and intimidation."
That sub-priority also states that elected and community representatives must work together. Community relations projects and personnel should be included in that.
A community relations strategy has been delayed time and again, and the draft Programme for Government does not make it clear when, or how, the strategy will be announced or when the consultation process will begin. That must be dealt with in tomorrow’s debate. The building of a strategy must be a priority, together with the efficient allocation of resources to community relations councils to ensure that all citizens will benefit from their projects.
No clear account has been given of money allocated, and no questions have been asked about the benefits to the entire community. Four years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, people are still being intimidated, terrorised and exiled by men and women of violence who wage their campaigns with ease. That should not be tolerated. It is not solely a matter for the Executive or for the Assembly, and my party and I believe that sufficiently strong, decisive local political leadership has not been shown. That must not continue.
Social inclusion, social exclusion and New TSN are good foundations to help disadvantaged ordinary people. However, those ordinary people deal with dreadful situations every day, and they must be supported and encouraged to come together in a viable and informed way. That can be done only by working with community relations organisations, which have their own confident and sustained strategy. That support and encouragement should be evident in all elements of the draft Programme for Government, which represents a manifesto for reinvestment and reform and a pledge to improve public services. I agree with those sentiments, and I have no doubt that they will be carried through. However, the basic safety and livelihoods of our people, together with their confidence, must be a priority.
I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement this morning, to which my main remarks have been addressed. Tomorrow I shall refer to the draft Programme for Government, and I look forward to the debate.

Mr Cedric Wilson: As the Unionist community views the proceedings today, it may be bewildered or bemused by the spectacle of the First Minister presenting a draft Programme for Government to the House. He referred to the length of time that it will take for the programme to come to fruition.
However, in Government partnership with Colleagues, as they are referred to by Mr Trimble, are members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party who represent the Unionist community. They are, by their outward pleadings and statements, declaring that they recognise that the Unionist electorate do not support the institutions. Furthermore, they are exhibiting signs of nervousness as they approach next year’s elections.
It is on that basis that Mr Trimble beats his chest and declares that he will not sit in a power-sharing Administration with Members who continue to be inextricably linked with those who are actively involved in terrorism. However, if Mr Trimble, his party and the DUP really were representing those who elected them to the Chamber, they would not sit in the Executive for one more day with those whom they are committed to removing. Mr Trimble will find it difficult to remove himself from his position because, like all his Ministers and those from the DUP, he is pledged under annex A, strand one, of the Belfast Agreement, to
"participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government".
That is what we are here to consider today.
Despite that pledge, Mr Trimble knows that he has no mandate, and he knows that people supported the DUP because it pledged to use the Assembly to bring down those institutions it believed to be undemocratic. Mr Trimble has now demonstrated that he also believes that, given the Assembly’s track record and the undemocratic structures that are in place, if he were to present his party to the electorate next year, he would face meltdown. However, it is only that prospective situation that is causing concern. There is no degree of recognition that those who front paramilitary private armies on the Republican and the Loyalist sides should not have been allowed to sit in government over the people whom they terrorised.
Mr Trimble also stands indicted of hypocrisy because of his new-found realisation that he cannot sit in government with those who front paramilitary organisations. Of course, he is the same Mr Trimble who walked into the negotiations at Castle Buildings flanked by representatives of Loyalist terrorist organisations and who continues to nominate those people to bodies such as the Civic Forum, to which he recommended a person who is inextricably linked to a Loyalist organisation. At the same time, he has representatives on the Loyalist commission.
Mr Trimble knows well that ordinary, decent people — Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist — do not want those people to serve in the bodies and institutions. Also, the Secretary of State has come up with the silly notion of a monitor to determine whether those people are still engaged in acts of terrorism and intimidation and holding the communities to ransom. Ordinary, decent people know what is happening; they do not need a monitor to translate the actions of paramilitary organisations: they want to see an end to them. They want the paramilitaries on both sides put out of business. Mr Trimble’s problem is that, although he beats his chest and pretends that he has had a road to Damascus experience in relation to opposing terrorists in government, he continues to sit in government with them, putting off the day on which he will pull the plug on that unseemly gathering of rogues. I appeal to the DUP to lead the Unionists out of the Executive and to leave Mr Trimble isolated.

Mr David Ervine: It amazes me how hard people will work to be seen to be even-handed, even though everyone knows that they are not. I have some difficulty with the draft Programme for Government, and, indeed, I have some difficulty with how it was presented this morning. Have you noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, how two parties spoke from prepared scripts, while the rest of us have to wing it? Two stooges stand up and tell their party leaders that they are wonderful. We keep falling into that trap; it has almost become a form of convention, and it does us no favours at all. The Opposition, for what they are worth, are small, weak and lacking cohesion. They do not even get the chance to have a look at what will be put in front of Members, and they often get only ten minutes’ notice about statements that will be made. The stooges with prepared scripts then come out. There is something inherently wrong about that.
However, let us move on. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said that there is a search for stronger partnerships. The Executive are superb role models for stronger partnership: we have a dysfunctional Executive talking about creating stronger partnership. That Executive have plunged themselves very quickly in the direction of PPP — perhaps soon to be PFI — without being remotely inventive about other possible options for raising finances following the disinvestment here caused by the Conservatives handing us their policies by the back door or by default.
In my constituency, 1% of children will go on to further and higher education, and when I read the draft Programme for Government I wonder how long it will take to destroy the iniquitous process of denying children higher education opportunities. I wonder when the Executive will truly invest the resources necessary to make a difference to those who live in the postal address areas that suffer discrimination every day, whether they are Protestant or Catholic.
When the weekend debacle occurred, we saw the frightened offering the controls of the machinery again to the frightening. Instead of forging ahead with politics that might work by genuinely building partnerships along lines that can build common purpose, we saw an illusion, similar to the decommissioning illusion, in which we hand the throttle, the clutch and the brake to the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. When will we learn that one should not offer the controls to the lowest common denominator? When will we learn that there has to be a way to get over our fears? That is what this is about — you cannot be seen to be too close to those with whom you are in Government, because one side will shout that you are selling out. Both sides play that game.
How many times have we seen one element of the Executive opposing the very decisions made by the Executive because it is popular to do so? That has happened with issues such as pay rises and office cost allowances. On numerous occasions collective decisions have been made, and individual Ministers have opposed them in the Chamber. Everybody wants to be the Opposition, rather than to take responsibility for decisions.
We are kidding ourselves about this process. The wording, while good in parts, is creating illusions for the people. There is the illusion that the Executive Ministers are going to deal with each other in a way that can make a difference; the illusion that they are going to deal with sectarianism and the illusion that they will deal with the crass and serious circumstances of poverty and disadvantage. Never has the community sector been so weak at a time when the Executive are talking about capacity building and making communities stronger. There are more groups scurrying about, hoping and begging to get some share of the funding provided by the Executive than ever before. We should end those illusions and get on with the practical work.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Given the decisions made at the weekend, it is difficult to anticipate what will happen as regards some of the programme’s targets, the legislative framework and our expenditure plans. I am full of questions.
It is good that the document is aspirational while trying to be practical. However, like David Ervine, I wonder where we go from here. The draft programme announces plans to introduce great new legislation on housing, planning and other issues, which people here awaited for years. Until now, we did not have our own Ministers and legislation to take account of local circumstances. The document carries a good message also as regards how we will provide for our children.
However, Members, who are to deliver the programme, must ask what will happen between January and the Assembly election. What will happen if we do not meet the targets for December, as in the case of community relations? Will those targets go to the wall? We may not be able to deliver the whole programme. Let us get real.
We need a contingency plan for the period until January, so that employers will know whether they must make redundancy plans for staff. The gap between the provision of Peace I and Peace II funding resulted in a situation similar to that which we are creating today: plans could not be made, and people could not be told what would happen in the next month, never mind the next three years. We must be fair by telling people that the targets may not be met and that they should continue as before rather than try to meet some of the programme’s objectives.
When community relations were discussed in the House two weeks ago, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister guaranteed that they would carry out a strategy, talk to parties and build partnerships. Members have not even built partnerships in the Chamber, never mind outside it. Parties who wish to be involved in the development of a community relations strategy, including Members with experience of working at interface areas, still await an invitation to participate in the discussion.
If there are plans for December 2003 — and I do see such a target — much work must be done to take account of what we did not get right and to put something different in place.
Major problems exist in communities, where the focus is mostly on paramilitary groups; however, we must focus also on the depoliticised, politically homeless young people who live there too. What kind of targets should we set? Two pages of targets have been set for schools; however, the text of the programme’s objective for youths is longer than the target set. The sole aim is to increase, over the next three years, participation in youth organisations by 2%. That is a sad indictment, given our communities’ problems.
Surely we could have many more imaginative projects and programmes, such as those listed under the targets for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There should be a greater link between the projects of that Department and the Department of Education to help young people who do not attend youth clubs and who need to be involved in the community. Good projects and practice that are not funded should have been taken on board. In both its projects on educational disadvantage, and in its document launched last week, ‘Could do Better’, the Civic Forum described some such good practice models.
When discussing exclusion, partnership and sustainability, we should take a hard look at what can be delivered between now and January.

Mr Robert McCartney: When I was listening to the Ministers’ statement this morning, I was tempted to think of the ship of state sailing along, all sails set and loaded to the gunwales with goodies for the future, while, up on deck, the captain and his mate, the First Minister and his Deputy First Minister, fight over the steering wheel about which rock — be it Scylla or Charybdis — they will crash the ship of state on. The presentation was a cross between ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and a Brothers Grimm story. Not since Orwell’s animals decided to take over the farm has there been such a declaration of aspirations. One could hardly think of anything — apart from zip-fasteners on bananas and self-peeling oranges — that is not promised in this great document.
The truth is that there is something in what Mitchel McLaughlin said about the document being long on talk, and very short on "deliverability" — a word I think he must have got from David Ervine. Delivery is the essential issue: what are these people going to deliver, and how will they deliver it? It is said that there is a black hole of underinvestment of £6 billion for the next decade, but the true figures are probably nearer £12 billion to £15 billion. Where is the money going to come from? Any sensible businessman, taking over a company, would get his accountants to look at the books to check the debts and deficits, and his engineers to look at the equipment. Nothing of that nature was attempted by those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement.

Sir Reg Empey: You ran away from it.

Mr Robert McCartney: This talk about running away is like a broken record. It comes from a man who wept in 1992 because he thought that he was going to be excluded from office, and that he might not get his sticky fingers on the levers of devolved power. I am very glad I ran away from that.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are promising all these goodies, but how are they going to be paid for? Perhaps they will be funded by public-private finance. However, those who would supply the money for that finance would borrow it on the market and make their profit from the additional interest that they would charge those who are going to involve themselves in a form of high-level hire purchase. Future generations will be burdened by repayment of that debt, because neither the capital nor the interest will be repaid out of the Barnett formula money.
Alternatively, the services may be financed with the new money that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to borrow from the British Government. Again, the capital will have to be repaid with interest. Where will they get the money to make the repayments? They will get it by screwing the population with a vast hike in rates, including a possible tap tax on water, and a possible effluent tax on sewage. All of this will be done to make good their inefficiency at the beginning.
I welcome all the aspirations of the draft Programme for Government. However, the fact is that Mr Trimble is once again telling the canard and the untruth that Sinn Féin signed up to deliver decommissioning by 22 May 2000. He knows that it did nothing of the kind. The burden imposed upon it was the same as that imposed on all other parties, which was to use its best endeavours to bring about decommissioning by that date. He knows better than anyone else that Sinn Féin threatened to walk away from the negotiations if they were obliged to give any other undertakings. This is not some sort of excuse for Sinn Féin, whose performance has been disgraceful, and whose alleged decommissioning is a farce.
We must tell the people the truth. We must stop telling them fairy tales about the future, such as those encapsulated in this draft Programme for Government. We must remind ourselves that the duty of any Assembly is to serve the interests of the people, and not to delude them with false promises that their children or grandchildren will have to pay for.

Audit and Accountability Bill: First Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 6/02] to provide for access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to information for the purposes of audits and examinations; to transfer to the Comptroller and Auditor General responsibility for the audit of certain public bodies; to provide for the re-organisation of the administration of local government audit; to confer additional functions on the audit committee of the Assembly in relation to the appointment of the accounting officer and the auditor of the Northern Ireland Audit Office; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Health and Personal Social Services (Quality Improvement and Regulation) Bill: First Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Chéim don Bhille Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta (Cáilíocht, Feabhsúchán agus Rialachán).
I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/02] to establish the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority; to make provision for the registration and regulation of certain establishments and agencies and to make provision relating to the quality of health and personal social services and to adoption, fostering and children under 12; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill: Second Stage

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am not exactly firing on all cylinders today, so I beg the indulgence of the House. I have a slight flu, to say the least, and perhaps I should not even be here. I am trying to breathe directly ahead so that I do not spread any germs.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill (NIA 02/02) be agreed.
Areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) are the jewels in the crown of our diverse and rich landscape. They are special places, rich in all forms of wildlife, and almost 200 such areas have been declared to date. I want to see these sites properly safeguarded so that they can be appreciated by future generations. That is why I am introducing the Bill.
The Bill meets the commitment in the Programme for Government to have a policy and legislative framework for the protection and management of ASSIs in place by July 2003. It will also help to address the requirements of the EC Directive on habitats by ensuring that Northern Ireland can better protect sites that, in addition to being ASSIs, have also merited designation under European legislation. I believe that the Bill will avoid the current threat of infraction proceedings from the European Commission and any potential fines that could result.
For some years my Department has been aware of the shortcomings in legislation pertaining to ASSIs, and those shortcomings were also recognised by the Assembly in the debate held on 23 January 2001 when there was strong support from all parties for better legislation. The Bill is the result of an extensive consultation process, which began when my predecessor, Mr Foster, launched the consultation paper ‘Partners in Protection’ on 2 March 2001.
It set out 20 key issues pertaining to the protection and management of ASSIs and sought public comment on how best to deal with those issues. Responses were received from a wide range of organisations with strong support for new legislation. On the basis of the comments received, my Department drew up several proposals, which were subject to a further round of public consultation in November last year. There was further strong support for those proposals, so, in bringing forward the Bill, we have endeavoured as fairly and equitably as possible and accommodate the wishes and concerns of all parties that contributed to the consultation process.
The Bill replaces the existing provisions for ASSIs in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. It builds on many of the features of the 1985 Order, but it also incorporates the new proposals that were the subject of the public consultation exercise.
The Bill has several key features. First, we are improving some of the procedures associated with declaration. For example, by allowing greater flexibility in the ways that amendments to site boundaries or citations can be introduced, we want landowners to be better informed about the declaration in general, so the Department will be required to provide a statement on how it considers the land can best be managed in the interests of conservation. Public bodies, including Departments, must also play their part. The Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the discharge of responsibilities complies with the need to conserve and enhance these valuable sites.
The Bill also contains measures to ensure more effective protection of ASSIs, with measures to address damaging operations that are undertaken by owners, occupiers or so-called third parties and our current inability to react appropriately and in a timely way to these concerns. Neglect or inappropriate management can be equally damaging. We must be equipped to deal with such occurrences, which are, thankfully, rare.
These measures may give some people cause for concern, particularly those in the farming community who feel that they place additional burdens on them. Let me assure them that I do not intend that to be the case, nor do I believe that it will be so. The vast majority of ASSI declarations over the last 16 years have proceeded without difficulty. Good working relationships have developed between my Department and the farming community. My aim is to ensure that the Bill, together with the other measures that I will be introducing, further strengthens those relationships.
Many of the measures contained in the Bill are needed for the small number of landowners who wish to carry out activities or operations that could irreparably damage these valuable sites. That is particularly important for sites whose importance is further recognised by designation under European legislation. The threat of infraction already hangs over the United Kingdom. The European Commission perceives that the UK has failed to implement fully the requirements of article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and the Commission has issued a reasoned opinion letter against the United Kingdom. Action to address that has already been taken in England and Wales through provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, otherwise known as the CROW Act. The measures in the Bill will address the shortcomings in Northern Ireland and ward off the threat of infraction and potential fines.
There are also safeguards built into the Bill for landowners, including the right of appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission against a decision made by the Department.
Another feature of the Bill is the provision to ensure better management of sites. Good management of ASSIs is a fundamental principle of the partnership approach that we have fostered over the past 16 years. There are presently over 250 management agreements in place between the Environment and Heritage Service and ASSI landowners or occupiers.
The measures contained in the Bill create the right climate to encourage and support the beneficial management of ASSIs. They will reinforce the change to positive management agreements that the Environment and Heritage Service has introduced recently. Our consultation paper ‘Partners in Protection’ recognised the importance of encouraging and rewarding beneficial management of sites rather than merely preventing damage.
We also said that we would introduce our own scheme for the positive management of ASSIs. I am delighted to announce today that a scheme is now in place, and available to all landowners and occupiers in ASSIs, called "MOSS", which stands for "management of sensitive sites". It is an acronym that I hope everyone will find easy to remember. MOSS acknowledges that the wildlife value of sites is the result of sensitive management of the land by both past and present landowners. It aims to build on that by encouraging farmers and landowners to adopt management practices that sustain and enhance the special features of an ASSI. In return, landowners will receive payments calculated to redress income forgone. I appeal to all those involved in the management of land within ASSIs to take advantage of this important initiative, so that the Department, in partnership with the landowners, can further protect Northern Ireland’s most important wildlife sites for the conservation of biodiversity and the benefit of society at large.
In conclusion, the Bill can meet the needs and concerns of the wide range of interested parties who are stakeholders in this matter. It will achieve our Programme for Government target for better legislation. It will also bring Northern Ireland into line with comparable legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it should also meet our EC obligations. The Bill strikes the right balance between the need for effective protection of ASSIs — sites that are vital to the well-being of all our diverse natural heritage — and allows for the continuation of established and sustainable land practices.
I speak especially to the more than 5,000 ASSI landowners across Northern Ireland, who have worked in partnership with the Department over the last 16 years to safeguard those valuable conservation sites. I stress to them that it is my wish that that continues and is further strengthened. There is a need for partnership among the landowners and those in the Administration who give the protection. This Bill will help achieve that aim, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Given that the Committee is already scrutinising four substantial Bills, the Minister will understand if that thanks is somewhat guarded. Despite their workload, members of the Committee are looking forward to discussing the specific terms of the Bill at Committee Stage, and, therefore, I will keep my comments relatively short.
The Minister will be aware that the Committee has already received several detailed representations on the consultation exercises that preceded the Bill. That demonstrates the importance that the Committee gives to this legislation — indeed, to all legislation — and the Committee’s clear determination to come to terms with the details of what, in many instances, is a complex Bill.
There is no doubt that legislation in respect of ASSIs must be updated. Although ASSIs are vital for the delivery of nature conservation and provide real protection for rare and important species of fauna and flora, as well as for those geological and earth science features present in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to pretend that there have not been problems. Indeed, the Committee considered a letter at its meeting last week that highlighted the problems that 39 landowners in County Tyrone were having in challenging the proposed designation of a huge area of land around Newtownstewart as an ASSI.
Although the Committee will give no opinion on whether the proposal is right or wrong, that letter demonstrates quite clearly how this subject can have an impact on the community. However, I thank the Minister for his assurance to the House that it is his intention to ensure that there is a strengthening of the relationship between the farming community and his Department and that they work in partnership.
In March 2001, the Department issued an initial and broad-ranging consultation document called ‘Partners in Protection’. Following a number of presentations and discussions with the Department’s officials, the Committee made a formal response in June 2001. The Department received a total of 35 responses to that consultation document. To the Department’s credit, that paper was followed by a further consultation exercise in November 2001 on the specific policies on ASSIs that it proposed to take forward. The Committee in turn responded to that consultation paper in February 2002. The outcome of that consultation was to form the basis of the Bill before the House.
My Committee will be particularly interested in how the Bill will seek to address a range of issues such as changes in ownership, powers to refuse potentially damaging operations and to make management orders and the level of fines. The maximum level in some circumstances in the Bill is £20,000, a figure that the Committee has already considered too low to act as an effective deterrent in two other Bills which have come before it.
In March 2002, the Minister appeared before the Committee, and we discussed a proactive approach to co-operating with him to deal with certain Bills from his Department. At that time, my Committee gave assurances that it would co-operate fully with the Department, subject to its being fully satisfied with the specific terms ultimately adopted in the Bills. I affirm that this remains the intention of the Committee. However, I can assure the Minister that, as he would expect, it will be diligent and thorough in examining the details of the Bill and will come back with any amendments necessary at the Consideration Stage.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Minister’s statement that he wishes to ensure the preservation of all our important areas. To ensure that ASSIs are effectively managed, it is important that new owners or occupiers of land be made aware of any conservation designations in place. The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 could be amended to include a requirement that an owner or occupier notify his or her successor.
I also welcome the Minister’s statement that the Department will supply each owner and occupier with a site management statement outlining the conservation objectives and indicating the appropriate management. I very much welcome his new MOSS designation whereby owners will receive payment, and I hope that owners of such sites and areas will take advantage of that. We must have legislation in place so that the Environment and Heritage Service can refuse consent for notifiable or potentially damaging activities. There is a gap in the current legislation that means that ASSIs do not afford protection against acts of deliberate damage by landowners or occupiers, and I hope that it can be plugged.
I agree with the Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, Rev Dr William McCrea, that the present deterrents for wilful damage to ASSIs are much too lenient. I hope that there will be increased fines for those causing or permitting damaging operations and new penalties for those who commit intentional or reckless damage or disturbance — that must be covered.
I look forward to the Minister’s providing the Committee with some more information and to a fruitful completion of the next stage of the Bill.

Mr Joe Byrne: My party fully appreciates the need to protect and conserve our natural and physical environment. However, the proposals, as they stand, could have a negative effect on the farming community and on industrial and residential development in rural areas, especially where ASSIs are sited near to villages and smaller towns.
The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment mentioned a designated ASSI in Newtownstewart in west Tyrone. That designated ASSI has caused great concern to the local community. The issues raised by the Newtownstewart example will have relevance to the Bill’s implementation. Many in the community fear that the proposed Deer Park ASSI will restrict landowners and farmers in the daily management and cultivation of their land at a time when the agriculture industry is experiencing serious economic difficulties. Furthermore, the Newtownstewart community is concerned that the Deer Park ASSI will restrict the land that can be used for industrial or residential development, mainly because the current proposal almost encircles Newtownstewart. It falls right inside the town’s inner designated limits.
The Department of the Environment has acknowledged that the Deer Park ASSI includes good quality, productive agricultural land and areas of commercial forest, so it is important that the procedures by which the Department declares an ASSI should be revised to take into consideration the quality of the agricultural land that an ASSI covers. An ASSI can be effectively declared and preserved only if there is proper local consultation, so that communities can work with the Environment and Heritage Service to protect the agreed ASSI in future.
Once an ASSI is declared, objections must be made within three months. As the residents and landowners of Newtownstewart have found, that gives little time for concerned parties to make formal representations to the Department. The three-month time frame must be extended to allow for wider consultation with the community that is affected by the declaration of an ASSI.
In the Newtownstewart case, the Department of the Environment has acknowledged the need to clarify and simplify the list of notifiable operations and those for which consent is not needed. The Environment and Heritage Service has, therefore, agreed to re-consult its statutory advisory body, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, on that. That underlines the fact that the Bill must give greater clarity on the matter; it must state to what extent an ASSI declaration will affect normal farming activities.
The concept of designating carefully chosen ASSIs is a good thing. We should be concerned about protecting our natural environment, especially those parts of our region that have significant and special physical features. The purpose of the Newtownstewart ASSI is to preserve a unique glacial feature of that area. However, people who wish to live and work in rural areas must not feel that the imposition of ASSIs, as determined by official bodies, is a conspiracy against them to hinder rural-based development, whether for residential or farm-related business activities.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the MOSS initiative. That is a step in the right direction.

Mr Jim Shannon: Many concerns about the consultation process have been intimated to me and to others. The Minister outlined a consultation and appeal process. However, ASSIs have created much concern and interest among landowners and farmers. Will the Minister assure us that nothing will take place before consultation with landowners and farmers? People who have businesses in ASSIs are also concerned, especially those who own caravan parks.
I am concerned that this designation comes before consultation, with the result that caravan park owners do not feel that they are part of the process. The caravan industry is geared towards leisure. Designation of ASSIs may mean that caravan sites, which are traditionally by the seaside and involve water-based activities, will be restricted. Caravan site owners, tenants and lessees of the caravan sites will therefore be unable to continue with their businesses.
In the light of all the obvious concerns and obstacles, can the Minister assure the House that the Department of the Environment will adopt a cautious attitude in its approach to ASSI designation? Will he also assure Members that the views of landowners, farmers, caravan site owners and all those who will be affected by ASSI designation will be taken on board? Can the Minister also assure the House that there will be full, positive, transparent consultation with everyone concerned before any designations are made and that their views will be endorsed and encompassed in the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill?

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. All Members welcome the idea of good legislation to deal with the protection of heritage. However, I share the caution of other Members. The farming community, in particular, should have been consulted with, listened to and provided with relevant information. Farmers in my area feel that they have not been involved and that some of the earlier designations have been made with little or no consultation. People feel that the designation of ASSIs are being imposed on the countryside. The Bill mentions "owners", but people feel that they own very little land when the Department decides that it wants to do something with it: the Department makes the decision and the farmer faces the consequences.
Although designation can cause the devaluation of an area, adequate compensation has not been provided. That has been the case in the Cookstown/Kildress area where sand extraction has taken place over recent years. It is an area rich in sand deposits, and the rest of the country has benefited from that in the past. However, because of farm diversification, that area is a honeypot for people to develop and expand a business, and a small area of conservation in the middle of it can be detrimental to those trying to develop it. If it is only a small area, the rest of the land can be landlocked, with damaging effect on the area to be preserved. Therefore, Members must look at the nature and purpose of the conservation and consider what they want to see the Bill develop and protect.
Clause 1(1) mentions the consultation between the Department of the Environment and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. Consultation must be wider than that. There must be proper consultation with farmers and the entire rural population. If policies are to be implemented to bring about ruralisation, and rural proofing, as the Minister of Agriculture mentioned, informative consultation must take place. It is hoped that the ASSIs will be properly managed. Members must also look at farm diversification and bear in mind that farmers in some areas do not have any other means of support.
The Environment and Heritage Service played an important role in the drafting of the Bill, but decisions should be made in partnership with the farming community. Decisions should not be imposed on the farming or rural community as they have been in the past. With some exceptions, the rural community has been the best protector of heritage. If you point out the special nature that you are trying to preserve, people will work in partnership with you. It is to be hoped that the measures in the Bill will be used in the proper manner and that decisions will not simply be imposed from the top.
The issue of right of appeal is also important. Those who want to pursue the right of appeal should have proper access and be given support. There should also be a back-up service to ensure that people get a fair hearing. In the past, too many tribunals have merely been about people making representations, while Government Departments have all the legislation and legal and administrative back-up to ensure that it is they who succeed. Those who want to appeal decisions need support to ensure that they have all the information. I welcome the opportunity for further discussion in the Committee and for debate in the House.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I give a general welcome to the Bill, but it is a disgrace that Northern Ireland is so far behind Europe and the rest of the UK in implementing environmental Directives. The Bill is overdue, and the Alliance Party is keen for it to be placed on the statute book as soon as possible. Other Members have spoken about consultations — that is the name of the game. However, the Department has failed dismally to consult properly with landowners and farmers. Some years ago Strangford Lough was designated as an ASSI. There was almost a revolt because landowners were not given the correct information and were being dictated to by the Department. There was a similar situation last year when Grey Point to Ballyquintin Point in Portaferry was to be designated as an ASSI. There were, again, lapses, despite my representation to the Department at a meeting of Ards Borough Council to ensure that consultation was the name of the game.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Dr McDonnell, it is extremely discourteous to turn your back to Mr McCarthy and continue a conversation when he is on his feet.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Some landowners were informed only by second or third parties, and that does not help the process. Everyone must get involved.
The Alliance Party also welcomes the requirement for the Department of the Environment to provide a statement on the management of the land as stated in clause 1(2). That should be of major benefit to the owner/ occupier of the land as well as improve conservation. Another important point is the provision for management agreements, as stated in clause 7, which includes costs being met by the Department. It is wrong that many landowners who care for valuable natural sites do so at their own cost. We also welcome clauses 11 to 13 with regard to the statutory duty on public bodies to promote conservation. However, in some respects, it is less robust than the requirements on private owners.
In paragraph 19 of the explanatory and financial memorandum "modest additional resources" are mentioned, yet the Bill provides for management agreements and payments where consent is withdrawn. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 requires a full management declaration, as in clause 1, for all existing ASSIs within five years. Can the Minister assure us that this can be done with "modest additional resources"?

Mr George Savage: I have listened attentively to all the Members who have spoken, and I cannot disagree with the comments that have been made. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially with regard to the management of sensitive sites.
I am concerned that many people who live in sensitive areas do not want to sign up to the MOSS scheme. What is their situation under the legislation?
I urge the Minister and his Department to be careful and to try not to force the issue. As Mr Molloy said, if the Department consults with the farmers it will find that they are sensitive to what happens in their areas. No one knows more about the issue than the farmers because they live in the rural areas. Although they understand what the Department is trying to do, they will not be pushed into doing something that they do not want to do.
I hope that consultation takes place. The Department must understand that it is entering into a partnership with the farming community. The last thing that farmers want is to have people turning up on their premises telling them what to do. I am not suggesting that the Minister will take that sort of attitude. However, as a farmer, I know that they will consult the Department if asked to do so. We are talking about a working relationship that will survive only if both partners work together.
Many issues affect rural areas at present, and agriculture has been going through a difficult patch. All those issues now come together. We must introduce a Bill that will protect the farmer as well as the sensitive sites, and that will take on board good farming practices. We are entering into an arrangement that will work, and, provided there is goodwill, it will survive.
The Minister must take all the issues on board. For example, he must address matters such as the farmers who do not want to have people tramping over their land. However, if there is a will, there is a way to address the issues, and I wish him success.

Mr Jim Wells: I remember clearly the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, because it was one of the pieces of legislation that took a long time to pass through the Assembly that sat between 1982 and 1986, and it attracted an almost record number of submissions.
A main point of that legislation was the issue of areas of special scientific interest. The law has come full circle, because, 16 or 17 years later, we are examining proposals to strengthen the protection of such areas. There is much to be welcomed in the Minister’s statement.
In many respects, the Assembly passes some types of legislation because it has no choice. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 covers England, Scotland and Wales and has greatly strengthened sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) legislation. We must introduce similar legislation in this part of the United Kingdom in the interests of parity.
There is also the matter of European legislation. We are signatories to many international conventions, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and European Directives on special areas of conservation and special protection areas for birds. There is a panoply of legislation and European Conventions. As part of the European Community, we are duty-bound to implement legislation that will protect such areas whether we like it or not.
As the Minister stated, the European Community is concerned that the United Kingdom is not doing all that it can to conserve habitats. A European Union policy, Nature Europa, obliges member states to designate areas representative of nature conservation among the top European sites. The Irish Republic and, to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland are a fair bit behind in meeting their obligations under that policy. It is in that context that the Minister finds himself having to amend and update legislation on ASSIs.
As a civilised, western industrialised nation, we would be hypocritical were we to criticise the Indians of the rainforests or the tribes of Africa for destroying their habitats and important wildlife areas if we have not put our own house in order. The main mechanism that we have to protect our environment is ASSI designation, which is important for nature conservation. That is particularly relevant because we do not have national parks as in Canada or the United States. That being the case, it is incumbent upon us not only to designate all the areas that meet the standard but also to ensure that they are adequately protected. The proposals go a long way to achieve that, particularly in dealing with third-party damage. In my constituency of South Down, ASSIs have been damaged not by the owner or occupier but by fly-tippers who damage sites without the consent of the landowner.
A point that has been overlooked in the Minister’s statement and which deserves a fair hearing is the MOSS proposals. They propose grant aid for farmers and other landowners to assist them in the management of ASSIs. That is positive, because we all know farmers’ desperate situation. Their incomes are at an all time low, and anything that provides more money for them is to be welcomed. It will change people’s perception of ASSIs. Instead of regarding ASSIs as negative and restrictive, farmers could see them as an opportunity to reach management agreements with the Department to work together with the Environment and Heritage Service to manage these important areas and to bring in much needed income. Some farmers would rather have the positive income that MOSS provides than lose perhaps £15 for every sheep they produce.
Mr McCarthy, Dr Birnie and other Members must remember that ASSIs cover only 6% of Northern Ireland. Even when all the sites have been designated, they will probably still cover less than 10%. Therefore 90% of the Province could be farmed in the normal way without any restriction.
It is worth having the special designation, but it is more important to have the funding to reach the agreements. I hope that sufficient finances are made available to the Department of the Environment so that the agreements can become widespread and positive. His constituents might even plead with Mr McCarthy to have their land designated as areas of special scientific interest so that they can avail of the funding.
Strangford Lough is in the constituencies of Strangford and South Down. There was much opposition to designating Strangford Lough as an ASSI. However, there has been little mention of it in the past three or four years, as landowners have realised that it is not the bogeyman that they assumed — it is positive. We owe it to future generations to preserve the 6% or 8% of the best of our nature conservation habitats in Northern Ireland so that they can enjoy these wonderful areas.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank Mr Wells for his beautiful words of help for me. He was not in the Chamber when I said that I look for assistance because I have the cold. I shudder to think what assistance he would have given me if he had heard me ask. Nonetheless, he spoke some wonderful words of support for what I am trying to do.
I thank all Members for their contributions and for their interest. Mr McCarthy and Mr Savage gave the farming point of view. We heard from Mr Shannon, and Jim Wells made a genuine point about the opportunity to protect our habitat. I will respond to some of the comments made. The departmental officials will scrutinise Hansard, and any of the detailed questions that have not been answered will be addressed in due course.
I thank Rev Dr William McCrea for his comments. The legislation requires updating. I entirely agree that it would be wrong to pretend that there are no problems — this very debate has shown that there are. I note the letter he mentioned from 39 landowners. The Member welcomed, as Mr Savage did, the strengthening of the relationship between the Department, in administrating ASSIs, and the farming and landowning community.
I will answer three of Rev Dr William McCrea’s points. He mentioned powers of refusal. The Department will have entry powers and power to refuse consent for operations that would damage special features of ASSIs. The Department will also issue management notices that will address neglect. That may be viewed as a stick, but it satisfactorily complies with human rights legislation.
The Bill provides for an appeal mechanism for the various aspects where the Department has authority. We must ensure that the powers are not abused, but we, as the public sector custodian, must also have the appeal mechanism and be seen to be using it correctly.
Rev Dr William McCrea mentioned management notices. We want a theme of agreement and partnership. We want to exhaust all possibilities in trying to seek agreement between those who must work the land and those who want to designate an ASSI. The safeguard of the right of appeal remains available if we do not get it quite right.
The Member also mentioned that the maximum level of fines in some cases in the Bill is £20,000. However, as the Member has said before, fines in other Bills have been higher. There is now a parallel. Where a maximum fine was £5,000, it has been brought up to £20,000. A fine of £30,000, which would reflect inflation, has been suggested. We are conscious of that and have been negotiating on it. I also remind the House that that is the figure in the lower court.
As projected under another Bill that the Environment Committee and the Department are considering, there are unlimited fines in the higher court. That will take care of the fines aspect, but I take the Member’s points about the £20,000 fine versus the £5,000 and the £30,000 fine, which features in another Bill.
We want fines to be an appropriate deterrent. Like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, we believe that the current fine is an inappropriate deterrent. That answers Mrs Carson’s point about increasing fines.
Mr Byrne mentioned the negative impact on the farming community. He mentioned the deer park at Newtownstewart. I do not want to address that specific area now, so my officials will address it directly with the Member. I have often said that the farming element is important. Mr Savage said that he is a farmer. I said that I come from a farming background. I empathise with farming and farmers. There are farmers in my family and in my constituency. Therefore, I try to empathise and understand the points raised by the farming community.
We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on the farming community. Many of the 5,000 people who own the 200 ASSIs are from the farming community, and we need their co-operation. The vast majority of owners work well with us — there are exceptions, but we try to deal with them. Mr Wells said that not enough attention had been paid to the management of sensitive sites. Again, I thank him for raising that point. I see from Mr Wells’s facial expression that he is concerned by the fact that I am commending him again.

Mr Jim Wells: It might be in the papers.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: It might well be in the papers. However, it must be noted that I am commending him for commending me.

Mr Nigel Dodds: That is even worse.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: That is true.
We will offer payments in return for managing land, and for the purpose of conservation. Thus we hope to give landowners the satisfaction they need. The Bill will provide for the compensation, through management agreements, of landowners who are unable to continue certain activities.
We do not want another management scheme — that is provided for in existing legislation. We would prefer to have an agreement, but, if we cannot do so, we will use management notices, which could be viewed as "the stick". We prefer to work in partnership, and it is essential that we do so.
Mr Shannon urged caution and sought assurance that nothing would take place until there had been further discussion. We recognise that we must work in partnership with those who manage the ASSIs.
Mr Molloy mentioned sand deposits and farm diversification, which we must examine to see how they can fit in with ASSIs. If land were not part of an ASSI, what would the farming community do with it? In economic terms, what would be the opportunity cost? What would be lost if land were designated as an ASSI? That opportunity cost needs to be considered when making decisions about compensation. Mr Molloy warned that decisions should not be imposed on the farming community. I have tried to convey the message that we do not wish to impose from the top. I disagree with Mr McCarthy’s remark that the Department failed dismally to consult with farmers and landowners.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Yes, dismally.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Two full consultations were carried out, and we tried to reflect their outcome in the Bill. The Bill will go to the Committee Stage, which will involve further consultation and deliberation, before it comes back to the Assembly. We will try to consult and work in partnership with those who will be affected by the Bill.
I apologise for not catching all of Mr McCarthy’s point about resource implications. We have sufficient resources to start the implementation work set out in the new legislation, partly because of the recruitment of additional staff, as provided for through the spending review of the Budget 2000-01. Of course, when resources are not available, I will bid for additional resources to ensure the fullest implementation of the work. However, to place a bid is not to guarantee its success. I can but hope, and shall wait to see how the spending rounds go.
The final contributors, Mr Savage and Mr Wells, encapsulated what I had already said. At the beginning of my winding-up remarks, I mentioned tension. Mr Savage spoke of partnership, saying that telling farmers what to do would not work. Both parties must work together. No one tells the farmers in my family what to do; instead, they should be asked to work together to get things done.
Mr Wells spoke of the "panoply of European Union legislation and conventions". It is our bounden duty — like it or not — to implement those. European Union Directives to protect the environment cannot be disregarded, otherwise we face infraction proceedings. The Bill takes account of the legal imperative, of European Union desires, and the need for partnership with the community in creating areas of special scientific interest. The Bill will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be fair to all the interests involved, to those who seek further measures to safeguard the natural heritage, to what EU Directives require of us, and to the owners and occupiers of the land, who continue to use it in a sustainable manner. I hope that it will be fair to the community as a whole, whether land-users or users of those areas of special scientific interest that need protection.
I commend the Bill’s Second Stage and look forward to the comments of the Committee for the Environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill (NIA 2/02) be agreed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for the Environment.

Company Directors’ Disqualification Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Company Directors’ Disqualification Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

State Pension Credit Bill: Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the State Pension Credit Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Bill: Final Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) do now pass.
I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill and the speed with which the deliberations took place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) do now pass.

Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations

Draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention Of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I ask Ms Hanna to move the motion, I remind Members that a draft Statutory Rule that is subject to approval by resolution requires the approval of the Assembly before it can be made by the Department.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Mr Speaker, these two regulations are closely linked. With your permission I propose to move them at the same time.

Mr Speaker: I am content for you to do that.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move
That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]
I express my appreciation to Dr Birnie and the Committee for Employment and Learning for considering the Regulations so promptly. I regret the short time available to the Committee, but, once policy had been settled as to how best transpose European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work in the UK, my officials had little time to process the Northern Ireland draft Regulations.
The fixed-term Regulations will implement European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work. They will also prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. Most statutory employment rights already protect employees on fixed-term contracts. Part-time workers, however, enjoy additional protection from being less favourably treated than comparable full-time workers.
The new fixed-term Regulations have been designed to give similar rights to fixed-term employees by ensuring that, because of the nature of their contracts, they are not treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees, unless that treatment can be objectively justified. In short, the Regulations’ key aims are to prevent discrimination against fixed-term employees and to place a limit on the use of successive fixed-term contracts to prevent abuses arising from their use. Fixed-term employees will be able to compare their conditions with those of employees who are not on fixed-term contracts and are employed by the same employer to do the same, or broadly the same, work.
I realise that there may be occasions when employers may have objective reasons for treating a fixed-term employee differently from a similar permanent employee, and the Regulations provide for that. In particular, they state that different treatment is objectively justified, providing the fixed-term employee’s overall package of conditions is not less favourable than those of a comparable permanent employee. Employers will not, therefore, be prevented from giving a fixed-term employee a higher salary to compensate for their not having other benefits, such as access to a pension scheme.
A core aim of the EC Directive is that member states take measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. The Regulations aim to achieve that by limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to four years, unless the use of further fixed-term contracts is justified on objective grounds. For the purposes of that area of the Regulations, service accumulated from 10 July 2002 will count towards the four-year limit.
There is no limit on the duration of the first fixed-term contract.

Mr Speaker: Order. I fear I must interrupt the Minister in full flow, but Standing Orders do require me to interrupt at 2.30 pm for Question Time. After Questions to the Assembly Commission, which come after Questions to the Ministers, the House will, return to the debate on the two Statutory Rules as requested by the Minister. Other Members who wish to speak may do so, speaking on either or both. The Question will then be put on each Statutory Rule in turn.
The debate stood suspended.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

I wish to advise the House that questions 1, 2, and 5 in the names of Mr Gibson, Mr Fee and Mr John Kelly have been withdrawn and will receive written answers. Question 8, in the name of Mr McGrady, has also been withdrawn.

OFMDFM (Staff Numbers)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail how the numbers working in its Department compare with the numbers in (i) the Prime Minister’s office and (ii) the Taoiseach’s office.
(AQO154/02)


We welcome the opportunity to clarify the distinction between a private office and a Department. Thirty-one staff are employed in our joint private office, including our private secretaries, special advisers and administrative support as well as a team that handles the large volume of correspondence that we receive.
Our Department has a wide range of functions that have been conferred on it by statute or that have been added by the Assembly from time to time. The Department’s responsibilities go far beyond those of the Prime Minister’s office or that of the Taoiseach. Our Department has a unique role and remit, covering equality and community relations policies and programmes, economic policy and European matters. It also supports the Executive as a whole and, indeed, supports and facilitates the work of the full range of Departments and Ministers. That is clearly shown in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the work of the Executive secretariat, the Economic Policy Unit and the Executive information service.
On 2 September, 417 staff were in post in the Department. Some 383 are directly engaged in the Department’s work, and the remainder are posted to those independent bodies for which the Department is responsible for providing staffing support, such as the Planning Appeals Commission and the International Fund for Ireland. A more detailed summary has been placed in the Assembly Library.


It would appear from the Deputy First Minister’s answer — and I invite him to agree — that the number of staff employed means that the people of Northern Ireland are getting value for money. The staff are targeted, deal effectively and efficiently with their work and are by no means disproportionate to the needs of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has called for more resources for the Department. Would the Deputy First Minister like to comment on that?


The Member is correct that the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has made the point on several occasions that insufficient resources are being committed to the OFMDFM. He has made that point in relation to e-government and European policy matters. Indeed, the Committee of the Centre observed in a report that more staff and financial resources are necessary.
We must also remember that some people who work in OFMDFM are working on, for example, the review of public administration. Many of those people have been brought in from elsewhere in the public service and will be on our payroll only for the duration of that review.
People misunderstand the comparisons made about OFMDFM, the Taoiseach’s office and Downing Street. A fair comparison might be made between the central co-ordination functions of OFMDFM and the Cabinet Office, which has a staff of more than 2,000. The Equality Unit and a range of other services have to be provided for somewhere in the Government, and the Assembly agreed that they would be assigned to OFMDFM.


Would OFMDFM’s responsibility for functions beyond central co-ordination be better sited elsewhere, leaving a leaner, slimmer Department to discharge its primary all-important function of co-ordinating Government?


The composition of Departments and the distribution of their functions are determined by the Assembly, having been proposed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When departmental functions are reviewed, it is conceivable that some responsibilities that are currently in the remit of OFMDFM could be reassigned to other Departments. However, some OFMDFM functions support the Executive as well as the work of Departments and their impact on other bodies such as the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The Executive are working not only to support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister but to facilitate the work of all Ministers and Departments. Some units lend themselves naturally to central office, such as OFMDFM’s role in providing Executive support, while units that deal with other Government work or specialist areas could be considered for reassignment. However, those units and functions will not disappear: many existed before the creation of OFMDFM; some, such as the Equality Unit, are new and required new resources and commitments. Many Members have pointed out that such areas require more finance and additional personnel.


Members will be surprised by the Deputy First Minister’s defence of the £13·2 million spent on the creation of jobs for David Trimble’s cronies and on UUP election failures.
Is the Deputy First Minister aware of panic in the OFMDFM as staff frantically search through the jobs columns of newspapers at the prospect of being out of work by 18 January 2003, as the First Minister yet again gets tough on the IRA? Or have OFMDFM’s employees taken the same cynical view as the rest of the population with regard to another deadline — yet again given before an election — which is never carried through? That deadline will go the same way as the deadlines given before the Assembly elections, the local council elections and the Westminster elections.


The staff of OFMDFM and the relevant pay and rations bill, involves many civil servants. The Member refers to a budget of £13 million and suggests that it is connected to cronies of either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. That suggestion is entirely misplaced. The majority of jobs in OFMDFM existed before the establishment of that Department; it was a matter of which Department those jobs would be located in. The setting up of the Executive, new structures and equality responsibilities meant that new jobs had to be created, which had to be assigned somewhere. There is an argument for a dedicated Equality Unit, which would require many staff. The issue should be treated fairly. Today in OFMDFM people were reading the excellent newspaper coverage of the fantastic success of the Derry minor team and the Armagh senior team rather than panicking and searching frantically for new jobs.


So they do not believe David Trimble either.


Order.

Police Training College Location

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it has met with the Chairman of the Policing Board to discuss the location of the police training college, and if it intends to support the Policing Board recommendation to locate the college at the site of HMP Maze.
(AQO125/02)

Discussions with Chairman of the Policing Board

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what discussions it has had with the Chairman of the Policing Board.
(AQO159/02)


With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. There have been several informal discussions between Ministers and the chairman of the Policing Board on the location of the police training college. We are aware of the board’s interest in the Maze site. However, our use of that site is subject to the terms of our agreement with the Treasury, which cover all the sites to be transferred to the Executive, free of charge, under our reinvestment and reform initiative. Those terms include an undertaking on our part to plan the development of each site strategically, with a view to maximising the benefit of the economic and social regeneration of local communities. To this end, members of the reinvestment and reform initiative project board have recently visited all the sites, and we look forward to receiving their advice. In the specific case of the important site at the Maze, we must also take into account proposals for the development of the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. As far as I am aware, there have been no discussions with the chairman of the Policing Board on any other matter.


The First Minister deliberately failed to answer the part of the question that interests most people. Does he support the proposal to locate a new police training college at the Maze site? That is critical, given that his party unanimously endorsed that position at a Policing Board meeting. Is it the case that, at a meeting over the summer months with the chairman of the Policing Board, he suggested that the Maze site was worth £1 million per acre and that, as a result, he could not justify giving that land to the board? Does he now stand as the impediment to progress in the creation of a first-class, twenty-first century training college for police officers in Northern Ireland? Will he now commit himself to locating a police college at that site?


I am afraid that, yet again, Junior is misinformed. I have had no meeting with the chairman of the Policing Board. There was a telephone conversation. I did not make the comment that he attributed to me. I do not know who may have said it, but I certainly did not, and I do not know where that invention came from.
I refer the Member to my original answer. The Maze site was transferred to us free of charge. If the Member thinks about that for a moment, he will realise the enormous problems we would face if we subsequently transferred to the Northern Ireland Office property that was given to us free and for a purpose. Clear conditions are attached to the use of the property. We would experience considerable difficulties with the Treasury if we departed from them.
There is a further factor to be considered. The total area, including not only the Maze site, but the Ministry of Defence property, amounts to more than 300 acres. The site is centrally located at a strategic point in Northern Ireland. It is clearly irresponsible to deal with this in a piecemeal manner without considering how to maximise the benefit in the broader sense, not only financially, but socially, for Northern Ireland as a whole. I would have thought that the Member’s colleague in the Department for Regional Development would want to reconsider strategic plans in view of the significance of this site rather than fritter the opportunity away. Of course we want to see a first-class police college there, but the Member should be more responsible and not propose to squander significant assets in such a way.


Order.


The First Minister made a very convincing argument for placing the police college at the Maze site. It is strategically placed, in a central location, and there is an abundance of land. Those are all good reasons to support locating a police college there. Is Mr Trimble saying that he is opposed to setting up a police college on a central site? People want more police officers on the streets, and his office is holding back better policing by delaying the opportunity to develop a police college.


The reason for the delay in establishing a new police college, one of the few proposals in the Patten Report that we favoured, is the Treasury’s failure to provide the appropriate finance. That is a reserved matter for the Northern Ireland Office. I support plans for a first-class police college, but its provision is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and the Policing Board. Many sites in Northern Ireland could be considered. Mr Poots might wish to seek the views of his constituents in the Maze area.


The First Minister must find it at least ironic, and at worst contradictory, to answer a question on a site for a new police training college two days after he threatened the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001, to which his party Colleagues on the Policing Board contributed. Is the Policing Board seeking to use the Maze Prison site, the Ministry of Defence site, or both?


I am sure that Ms Lewsley is very glad that on Saturday we managed to save the agreement, to give it another chance to succeed and to prevent it from collapsing, which it otherwise would have done. We need to put that in context.
In response to Ms Lewsley’s question, we have only the Policing Board’s press release to go on. The board stated that the new police training college could be located on the Maze site, and it made reference to "the extensive site at the former prison". No reference was made to the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. Any use of part of the Maze site would have to take account of the whole area. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not made a decision on the matter because it is unable to do so. However, we have asked the reform and reinvestment initiative project board for its advice, and we think that the matter should be considered strategically.


Question 6, in the name of Mr McNamee, has been withdrawn. Questions 1 and 5 were fully withdrawn and will not receive written answers.

EPCU and Republic of Ireland’s EU Policy

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail its European Policy Co-Ordination Unit’s (EPCU) efforts to ensure that the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account in the formulation of the Republic of Ireland’s EU policy.
(AQO137/02)


In December 2001, the North/South Ministerial Council agreed that a working group should be set up to consider the arrangements to give effect to paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement. Three meetings of the working group, which on the Northern Ireland side were led by the EPCU, have now taken place, and the North/South Ministerial Council has endorsed a progress report. That commits each sector to consider at its next ministerial meeting whether any EU issues require attention, and an assessment will be given at the next plenary meeting.
Future deliberations of the working group will consider how the views of the Council can be reflected appropriately at relevant EU meetings. Provision is also made in the common chapter for joint initiatives, and responsibility for promoting and monitoring that work falls to the Special EU Programmes Body, which will produce a progress report next year.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be in the best interests of the people of the Six Counties of Ireland were treated as a single economic unit of a wider European Union? Can he confirm or deny whether the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has met, or intends to meet, Mr Dick Roche TD, Minister of State for European Affairs.


The North/South Ministerial Council has been examining EU issues in its plenary sessions. In addition, the different sectoral bodies will consider any EU issues that arise. Those matters will be the subject of a further report to the North/South Ministerial Council. Further meetings, involving a variety of Ministers, possibly the First Minister and me, may arise from that. I hope that Mr McElduff appreciates that I am reluctant to get involved in meetings outside the North/ South Ministerial Council in circumstances in which a threat or question mark may be placed on the Council format.
We best serve the entire community’s interests by maintaining the type of democratic arrangements that we have here, by pursuing our opportunities for North/South and east-west co-operation on a whole range of policy matters and by addressing those EU policy issues that concern us on that sort of co-operative basis. We hope to continue to work in that way and to work for positive development in the EU itself, which the Member may not favour so strongly.


Further to the Deputy First Minister’s answer, does he agree that all parties in the Executive committed themselves to implementing all parts of the agreement, including the North/South Ministerial Council, which is a vital part of the agreement? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be illegal not to nominate? Can he confirm how he plans to handle the nomination of Ministers to future meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council?


In the ‘Declaration of Support’ all the parties involved committed themselves to the full operation of all the arrangements under the agreement. Those arrangements include the North/South Ministerial Council. There are other institutional arrangements — the Assembly, the Executive and the British-Irish Council. There are also other arrangements established under the agreement, such as the Policing Board. I recognise that the agreement committed me, and my party, to all those arrangements. As Deputy First Minister, I continue to discharge those commitments in full.
A schedule of meetings for the North/South Ministerial Council exists. I will play my part in providing nominations for those North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Should there not be nominations for those meetings, we know that that has been a matter of legal consideration previously, and we are also aware of the judgement in that case.

Community Relations Discussions with NIO

10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail any recent discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the subject of community relations.
(AQO147/02)


At a meeting on 13 August involving Minister Haughey, Minister Leslie and Des Browne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mr Browne outlined progress on his initiative on interface violence. That has involved a series of meetings with political parties and other key interests. Subsequently, on 12 September, Mr Browne issued a press release summarising progress on those meetings.


Does the First Minister agree that the actions of paramilitaries, both Loyalist and Republican, are fomenting community conflicts and have undermined efforts to improve community relations in both interface areas and the wider community? Has he highlighted to the Northern Ireland Office the adverse effects that paramilitary actions have had on community relations and on public confidence in the democratic process?


There appears to be significant evidence to indicate that community division, particularly in interface areas, is now greater than it has been at any point in the last quarter of a century. The deterioration of the position, which is contrary to what one would have expected subsequent to the agreement, is wholly attributable to the actions of Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries at those interfaces. There is no doubt that the conflict that we have seen at interfaces during the summer has had a dramatic impact on community confidence; that is true to such an extent that as a result of the behaviour of paramilitaries, the future is not good, and these institutions are at risk.
I am sure that the Member listened with me in disgust to Mitchel McLaughlin this morning crying crocodile tears over the threat to the institutions when it is his colleagues and their nocturnal activities who pose the greatest threat.


And you who sit in government with them.


You too.


Order.

Review of Public Administration

11. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what progress has been made on the review of public administration.
(AQO146/02)


Since the launch of the review of public administration on 24 June, the review team has made significant progress. An initial pre-consultation process with a range of stakeholders began in late August and will conclude on 11 October 2002. That involves more than 60 meetings with representatives of local government, public bodies, health bodies, education bodies, the Civic Forum, organisations that look after the interests of public sector staff, the community and voluntary sector, rural interests, political parties and the business sector, et cetera. It is a listening exercise that will help to inform the development of a formal consultation document that will be published later this year.
The team has initiated a major programme of research. During the summer it commissioned several briefing papers on topics such as accountability, public sector reform and subsidiarity. Those papers will be made available to the public on the review team’s web site by the end of the month.
Other elements of the research programme include a major exercise to map the public sector, attitudinal work and focus groups.


The Deputy First Minister has outlined some aspects of the pre-consultation process. However, when does he plan to implement the more public aspects of the consultation, as it is important that we get to that point as soon as possible? Many people who are not members of the bodies to which the Deputy First Minister referred may want to have an input.


As I have said, the team is already meeting with a range of stakeholders. It is conscious of the need for meaningful engagement with the end-users of public services and, along with a panel of experts, is actively considering the best way to carry that out at each stage of the review. At this early stage, the team is gathering initial public views through the Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey and through the establishment of a focus group project. The formal consultation will then be drafted on the basis of those initial soundings, and that should proceed on the timetable that was outlined when the review was launched in June.


I have no further requests for supplementary questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, as we are a little before the time assigned for questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure I suggest that the House takes its leisure — culture and arts to the side — until 3.00 pm.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)

Culture, Arts and Leisure
Football Strategy

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline (a) the status of his football strategy and (b) when he hopes to see the strategy fully implemented.
(AQO162/02)


In my statement to the Assembly on 25 June 2002, I called for a commitment from the Irish Football Association (IFA) to sign up to a package of measures consistent with the recommendations contained in the advisory panel’s report, published in October 2001. Since then the IFA, with support from the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and in consultation with others, has been working on the preparation of a long-term development plan for the game. I understand that the plan was discussed by the IFA council on Monday 16 September 2002. I have not yet seen a copy of the development plan but look forward to seeing one in the very near future. Subject to the time frame contained in the IFA’s development plan, I anticipate that implementation will take place over the next five to 10 years.


I know that we cannot second-guess or pre-empt the plan, but, if the Minister hopes to see it implemented over a five- to 10-year period, could he give us some flavour of what general progress and advances he would hope to make?


The progress which we hope to make is the development and advancement of the game. A key thing that the development plan must have is the backing of the wider football community. There must be opportunities and benefits for all levels of football. It is not simply about the international team or senior football but the sport at all levels right down to the grass roots, including boys’ and women’s soccer and disability sports. It is essential that it be based on fundamental principles of fairness, inclusiveness, accountability, leadership and transparency. That is the goal and the vision that we seek. The advisory panel published 150 recommendations. When I finally get the IFA’s plan, I shall carefully examine it to see the correlation with our own strategy; I hope that there will be a very close match. If there is not a close match, I shall have to consider the next step.


The Minister has confirmed that there has been a delay on the part of the IFA in responding to the football strategy. Given that delay, does he feel that the football strategy can still be delivered in the reduced timescale and within the lifetime of this Assembly?


The strategic plan outlined by the panel looks far into the future for implementation. Time is getting short for an IFA decision to support the strategy, and the Member is quite right to point to the fact that the lifetime of this Assembly is drawing to a close. I asked the IFA to give me a response by September. I understand from press reports that it now has a development plan, but it has not yet given it to me. I have not seen it; the Department has not seen it. I should have thought that I might have received it by now. I look forward to getting it, at which time I shall carefully scrutinise it. I shall probably also return to the original panel to seek its advice.
One of the key things that I shall be seeking is support from the wider football family. Only if the entire football family in Northern Ireland is prepared to back the strategy can we make it work.


In commending the Minister for the initiative and drive he has shown in his football strategy, which contains a great many good and meaningful measures, I trust that the small junior football clubs will not be forgotten in any way, enabling them to survive and so provide encouragement and decent facilities for junior footballers. Such clubs are the heartbeat of soccer throughout Northern Ireland; their survival is vital for football in general to succeed.


I endorse what Mr Foster has said about junior soccer. As I said in my answer to Dr McDonnell, I see the strategy including the entire football family, with a strong concentration on youth, and on the junior and grass-roots levels as well as the senior game. A sum of £1·6 million has already been made available for youth development, which will provide opportunities for the development of centres of excellence. Nineteen centres have already been announced; there are four more to come, making a total of 23. That shows our desire to concentrate on the grass roots and develop the game not from the top down but from the ground up.

Public Library, Lisburn

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide an update on progress towards providing a new public library in Lisburn.
(AQO160/02)


Before I answer the question, I shall take the opportunity to congratulate Lisburn and Newry on being awarded city status in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year.
When I updated the House in March, I said that the South Eastern Education and Library Board was exploring the provision of a new library for Lisburn under the private finance initiative (PFI) and that the project board had initiated the PFI procurement process. That process is continuing and is at the evaluation stage. I am pleased to say that the project is within the indicative time frame.


Although I am pleased to hear that progress is being made on the Lisburn library, we have been waiting for some 25 years for a library in the area that suits the city of Lisburn. Can the Minister give us more concrete information about when a decision will be made to offer the contract to the company involved? When will work start on the new library?


The process was initiated by another Administration. It has been a long process, and there have been difficulties about the Linen Hall site. However, the Department funded the purchase of the site, and a project board has been set up. The Department approved the outline business case in February 2001, and a PFI procurement process was initiated. That process is currently at stage 10 of the 14 stages of the process. I did not design the PFI process. It was appropriate that we continued with it as it had been started before we took office. The process appears to be nearing conclusion, and, all things being equal, the project will start in the spring of 2003. In anticipation of that, the Department has agreed to provide additional funding for the library’s running costs.


At long last it seems that building work on a new library in Lisburn will start next year. However, the city of Lisburn covers a wide area, and there is also the issue of the public libraries in Moira and Dunmurry. At what stage are the plans for those two libraries?


There are several libraries in the Lagan Valley constituency, and Billy Bell has highlighted two that are in poor condition in Moira and Dunmurry. The South Eastern Education and Library Board, which is responsible for the provision of libraries, with the support of the Department, is progressing economic appraisals on both those libraries, which will take place in 2003 and 2004 for Dunmurry and Moira respectively. Those are the next two steps that the board is taking with regard to the provision of capital. We recognise that the libraries in Moira and Dunmurry are in poor condition and that they require capital investment.


I do not see Mr Gibson in his place to put question 3.

Football Stadium Projects

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to give his assessment of the proposed new-build football stadium projects announced at various venues in the Province.
(AQO164/02)


I have been aware for some time of the problems facing soccer and the need to upgrade many sports stadia, especially soccer stadia, in Northern Ireland to modern standards. I have already taken steps to address some of the problems through the interim safe sports grounds scheme, but this proposal prioritises safety issues. Against that background, I welcome the news that some local football clubs are beginning to negotiate partnerships with local authorities and the private sector, not only to develop more modern stadia but to make them more commercially viable.


Does the Minister agree that, to date, the refurbishment of sports grounds has only been a sticking-plaster job and has not been successful, even though it has dealt with health and safety? With new interest, especially from the private sector, does the Minister agree that there is a need to review the funding provided through the safe sports grounds scheme?


I do not agree that the refurbishment programme is a "sticking-plaster job". The Executive have devoted £6 million to sports grounds in the past two and a half years. That indicates the support that major sports grounds receive — and, I hope, will continue to receive — from the Executive. That money has been spread across several sports such as soccer, Gaelic football and rugby.
It is important that those involved in football look beyond receiving a Government handout and a Government cheque. That is why I welcome the moves that some soccer clubs are making to find private support and sponsorship, and local authority support. Ballymena United is a prime example of partnership between a football club and its local authority. Bangor FC is looking at a possible partnership with North Down Borough Council to obtain land for a football stadium, and Ards Borough Council has given a portion of land to allow Ards FC to build a new Castlereagh Park. Those are the types of steps that must be taken.
The problem will not be solved by Members coming to the Chamber and asking for money. Resources are scarce, and money should come from a cocktail of resources. It is pleasing that football is beginning to move forward; it gives a sense of anticipation for better and more family-friendly stadia, which is what everyone wants. Therefore, considering what has been invested, it is unfair to describe the refurbishment programme as a "sticking-plaster job".


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the light of the recent sectarian death threats against Neil Lennon and the sectarianism associated with some football grounds, does the Minister agree that any planned projects should proceed only if there is a guaranteed anti-sectarian strategy in place.


Anti-sectarianism policies are a key part of the grants and revenue scheme that was announced under the safe sports ground scheme. Within that scheme, funding will be available under three programmes: safety management; urgent (first-aid) works; and major works. Soccer, Gaelic football and rugby clubs availing of that support are required to have anti-sectarian policies in place.
Sectarianism is one of the evils — if not the evil — of our society. It has been, and continues to be, the engine for so much misery for our people. Therefore, society, the Assembly and the Executive have much to do. It is wrong to characterise sectarianism and say that it is football’s problem. It is not only football’s problem; it is Northern Ireland’s problem. Problems that appear in football are a reflection of society. They appear in other areas, and the Assembly seeks to address those problems.
Football is a key sport that could heal the problem because it is an interface sport that both communities play and through which both communities meet. However, when they meet, there are occasionally disgraceful and appalling scenes. What happened twice to Neil Lennon was disgraceful, and everyone condemned it without question. However, by and large, that sort of thing is rare. Football is a way of bringing society together, and that is one of the reasons why the Executive and the Assembly are seeking to invest in it and in other sports.


Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland could have benefited from the joint Ireland/ Scotland bid to host the European Championships in 2008, if it were not for the poor standard of the local stadia? Does he further agree that a national stadium is desirable and necessary soon?


I was quoted in ‘The Observer’ yesterday regarding the bid to host the European Championships in 2008, but I did not make a statement to that paper, and the quotes ascribed to me are not entirely accurate. Northern Ireland was not in a position to join that bid because it does not have an international stadium with 30,000 seats. Therefore, if we want to get involved in that tournament, our next opportunity is 2012. However, Northern Ireland cannot do it alone; there would have to be some form of partnership. Scotland was going to make its own bid, but then it decided to seek partners, and it joined up with the Irish Republic. It seems, however, there are difficulties in the South in respect of the delivery of large stadia, so their bid is in question.
The next opportunity for Northern Ireland will be in 2012, but it costs a great deal of money to host that type of tournament, and Northern Ireland would have to find its share of it. If we had that sort of sum to invest in sport, would we want to invest it all in a tournament that lasts a couple of weeks in 2012? We will not even be at first base until we have a stadium of international standards with 30,000 seats. I agree that that is essential.

Football (Offences) Act

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline discussions he has had about extending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to Northern Ireland.
(AQO167/02)


My departmental officials and I have had discussions with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, the Irish Football Association and the Police Service about the practicalities of extending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and related legislation to Northern Ireland. The discussions have included consideration of the type of legislation that might be appropriate for Northern Ireland to control spectator behaviour in football grounds, which is the main purpose of the GB Act. Those discussions have also taken place in the context of wider deliberations on the soccer strategy process.


Once again, the Neil Lennon saga shows the scourge of sectarianism in football in Northern Ireland; unfortunately, it made headlines across the world. The Football (Offences) Act 1991 largely deals with race, but it could be adjusted because it has been shown to be effective in other parts of Great Britain and Scotland.
In reply to a previous question, the Minister recognised that many Irish League football clubs want to improve their grounds and build new stadia. In the Department’s efforts to encourage clubs to develop football as a family sport, will the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to deal with all aspects of hatred and sectarianism, not only in football but in all sports?


As I said in a previous answer and on previous occasions, I was appalled by the Neil Lennon affair. It was disgraceful. I condemned it then, and I condemn it now.
Sectarianism is not simply a problem in football, nor can football on its own solve sectarian problems. Sectarianism is not confined to football. Every activity in Northern Ireland can be marred by sectarian behaviour. Anti-sectarian measures must cover all sports.
The Football (Offences) Act 1991 (c.19) contains regulations against hooliganism and racism. Three of the offences listed are: throwing an object at or towards the pitch or spectators, taking part in indecent or racist chanting and going onto the pitch without lawful authority. The Act was subsequently amended to allow banning orders to ban certain spectators from domestic and international matches, and racist or indecent chanting was specified for acts abroad.
It could be argued that the Act is one person’s solution to another person’s problem. Northern Ireland has public order legislation matching that of Great Britain but which also outlaws sectarian behaviour. Therefore there are weapons on the statute book to deal with sectarianism.
In addition, my Department has had discussions about football with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and with the Irish Football Association (IFA). However, there are problems across the board; therefore any solution must cover sport in general.
The Department is considering legislation that would incorporate the experiences of the mainland as far as the Public Order Act is concerned. It will examine how to tackle sectarianism at all sporting venues in Northern Ireland — not just at football matches. Widespread consultation has begun, and we will try to create suitable legislation. I must stress that legislation alone will not solve the problem and that legislation dealing with sectarianism in football only will be inadequate. Although the events surrounding Neil Lennon hit the headlines, sectarianism occurs at other events and venues, and the solution must go right across the board.


Does the Minister agree that the football authorities in Northern Ireland have done an excellent job in resolving some of the problems in football? Who will pay for enforcing the new measures if we introduce legislation similar to the Football (Offences) Act 1991? Will it be the clubs? My understanding is that, under the new policing arrangements, the police could not afford to pay for it.
Is the Minister happy with the arrangements between the IFA and the police? Will the police stay outside the grounds and let the clubs’ stewards monitor activity inside?


First, order in the grounds is primarily a matter for those who organise the games, and the police will be called in only as a last resort. Secondly, the Department is some way from deciding the funding to implement any legislation, but it will be examined in the consultation.
I have said several times that steps have been taken to address the issues. It is wrong to think that nothing has been done. Northern Ireland’s public order legislation goes further than that of Great Britain by outlawing religious hatred. It is an offence to arouse fear on the basis of religious belief and nationality. My Department is involved with the IFA’s football for all strategy, which includes a code of conduct for spectators, professionals, stewards, closed-circuit television provision and the appointment of an IFA community relations officer.
The IFA and the Sports Council take that seriously. I commend the work of both organisations, and the IFA have done an excellent job so far. I also commend the police, and how they regularly manage large crowds. However, there is an argument that they may need further provision through legislation, and we will look at that. We will discuss the expense through consultation, look at revenue consequences as part of that process and satisfy those in due course.


Will the Minister elaborate on the likely cost of such legislation to clubs in Northern Ireland, after his discussions with the police? Will he confirm that it will not only be football clubs, but GAA clubs and others that would be covered by such legislation?
Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party are usually vociferous about sectarian behaviour at football matches. Will the Minister comment on their silence about the sectarian violence perpetrated by those celebrating Armagh’s win in the all-Ireland final, or whatever it is called? Will he condemn the attacks launched on Protestant churches, Orange halls, police stations and individuals who were perceived as Protestants, by GAA supporters over the weekend?


I confirm that the legislation will embrace all sports venues — not just football. As I mentioned in previous answers, it is not a football-only problem; it goes across all sport and all of Northern Ireland society. As I said in my answer to Mr Hutchinson, with regard to cost, we are in the early stages, and we will work out the revenue consequences through that consultation process.
The Armagh team is to be congratulated on its achievement, which is considerable, as is the junior team of Derry. It has been 54 years since two Northern Ireland teams won both titles. It is sad for Gaelic athletics that the success was besmirched by the activities of a minority of fans who behaved disgracefully in Lurgan. I have spoken to officials in Gaelic athletics, and they have no time for that. That type of fan does Gaelic no good, and Gaelic — as with all sports in Northern Ireland — neither needs nor wants them. I also condemn all attacks on Orange halls, police stations and Protestant churches.

All-Ireland Arts Promotion

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the nature and extent of all-Ireland co-operation and partnership in promoting the arts.
(AQO143/02)


The Arts Council of Northern Ireland and its counterpart in the Republic jointly fund many projects, organisations and individuals. Those include opera, drama companies, poetry publishers, music schemes, art magazines, writers’ centres, storytelling, literature, festivals, individual artists and research programmes.


I thank the Minister for his assurances of all-Ireland partnership in promoting the arts. However, I digress to his responsibility for sport. Does the Minister have any plans to formally recognise the achievement of the Armagh team?


Minister, you can reply extremely briefly, or give the Member a written reply in due course.


The arts in Northern Ireland are organised by the Arts Council, and the arts in the Irish Republic are recognised by their respective counterpart.
Those bodies meet twice a year to discuss issues. It is important that Mr McElduff does not attempt to politicise the arts. The arts are specifically excluded from all-Ireland bodies.


Time is up.

Agriculture and Rural Development
Food Body

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to update the Assembly on the suggestion that a food body should be established in Northern Ireland; and to make a statement.
(AQO145/02)


If it is in order, I wish to place on record that I have publicly condemned the actions in Lurgan last night. I want to put the record straight. It was a very small minority of fans, with whom the rest of the GAA supporters are disgusted.
The vision group recommended the establishment of a food body, as there was broad support for it in principle during consultation on the vision report. In March 2002, I established a working group to review the case for a food body, to advise on the possible structure, responsibilities and remit of such a body, and to make recommendations on funding, including the balance between industry and Government funding and the extent to which a body might subsume the activities of existing organisations. Janet Trewsdale, acting chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, chairs the working group, which includes representatives of the main stakeholders. The working group is close to completing its work, and I expect to receive the report shortly.


The Minister said that there would be questions about the food body’s structure, responsibility and remit. Can she provide more information on the food body’s exact remit and how it might function?


I cannot confirm the remit of any food body until I have considered the working group report, which I expect to receive within a week. I notice that the clock has stopped for some reason. Is that an omen?


There will still only be an hour and a half to answer questions.


The vision group report identified food marketing and supply chain issues as the main work areas for a food body, but I cannot give any further confirmation until I have received the report.


The Minister mentioned the priorities of the vision group’s proposals. How wide-ranging will the consultation with different bodies on those priorities be? Will it be contained in the action plan that is scheduled for November 2002?


Does the Member mean the consultation on the food body?


Yes.


There will be extensive consultation with all stakeholders and interested parties on the proposals about the food body. Consultation on the vision document is complete. I shall give my views when I receive the report on the food body. I shall then consult the Committee and other interested parties.


Would it not be more relevant to farmers if the Minister established a fair price commission to ascertain exactly where profits in the agrifood industry are going? In the light of its findings, a commission could create a fair price tag for goods with farmers and producers being paid a fair price.


A fair price commission is a reserved matter and not one for the devolved institution, so that is not for me to consider. As the Member said, there are great difficulties, concerns and mistrust in the agrifood industry. Farmers feel that they are not getting a fair price for their produce.
That can be resolved through greater co-operation in the chain. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, of which Mr Savage is the Deputy Chairperson, and the Competition Commission, investigated the matter and found no evidence of price-fixing or unfair practice. I would be concerned if evidence were uncovered. However, competition matters are reserved.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Would the Minister see merit in an all-Ireland food body?


A working group has been set up to examine the viability of a food body and to consider how it should be financed and what its remit should be. It would be inappropriate of me to comment on the matter while the working group is still considering it. When I have seen the report, I will give my views on it.


Question No. 6, in the name of Mrs Annie Courtney, has been withdrawn and will not require a written answer. Question No. 10, in the name of Mr Fee, and Question No. 20, in the name of Mr Eddie Mr Grady, have also been withdrawn but require written answers.

Agricultural Colleges

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she intends to prevent the absorption of the Province’s dedicated agricultural colleges into the further and higher education sector, as proposed in the O’Hare Report.
(AQO131/02)


The O’Hare Report’s recommendations are the result of a review by an independent panel of the existing arrangement for agrifoods, research and development and education. Among the panel’s wide-ranging recommendations is the transfer of the teaching function of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s colleges to the further education sector. I have not yet decided on my response to the report’s recommendations. I received the report at the end of April and immediately put it out for public consultation. The consultation period ended on 31 August, and I received more than 180 responses, which I am studying. However, in July, I told the Rural Stakeholders’ Forum that a strong case would have to be presented before I would consider integrating the Department’s colleges with the further education institutes.


Does the Minister agree that the absorption of the agriculture colleges into further and higher education colleges could jeopardise agriculture education in much of the Province, since further education colleges tend to decide on the viability of courses strictly according to their budgetary requirements?


I am aware of the importance of agriculture colleges to the industry, and their interaction with it, so a strong case would have to be presented to me before I would consider integrating them with further education institutes.

On-Site Testing System

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the rapid on-site testing system used by the agriculture research service of the United States Department of Agriculture when dealing with suspected disease outbreaks in the national herd.
(AQO126/02)


My officials have been in contact with the research service of the US Department of Agriculture to discuss its work on the development of a rapid on-site testing system, which can be transported to the site of a suspected disease outbreak by truck or by helicopter. It combines the speed of the latest disease diagnosis techniques of molecular biology with advanced mobile communication technology. In the event of an outbreak, rapid diagnosis can be carried out on the farm, and the results are immediately transmitted back to the control centre. The system is particularly suited to the diagnosis of major outbreaks of exotic diseases where speedy action is essential. I expect that such advance and the methods available to deal with major outbreaks of disease will deliver benefits in the next few years, should we need them.


I thank the Minister for her research into the apparatus used in America. I learned that the time between the test and the result is 90 minutes. Here, the same result took three days. Will the Minister tell us why that system was not deployed here during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?


It would have not been appropriate to use this system last year because international authorities for the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease approved neither the system nor the technology on which it is based. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) foot-and-mouth disease reference laboratory at the Institute of Animal Health, Pirbright has tested the performance of the diagnostic element of the system. Its reports contain reservations about the system and its use as a portable facility, although it remains positive about the potential of this type of rapid diagnostic technique. One of the problems with portable systems is the real danger of cross-contamination during such an exercise.

Wet Weather Payments

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in achieving wet weather payments for farmers.
(AQO163/02)

Wet Summer Conditions

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail any special measures and actions taken by her Department to assist farmers following the wet summer weather conditions; and to make a statement.
(AQO139/02)

Deteriorating Climatic Conditions

11. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the deteriorating climatic conditions in Ireland, what assessment she has made on the impact this has had on agricultural production and what actions she proposes to address this impact
(AQO132/02)

Impact of Bad Weather

19. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the impact the bad weather is having on production this year, if she will be preparing a dossier for submission to the European Union.
(AQO155/02)


With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall answer Questions 4, 7, 11 and 19 together. I am acutely aware of the difficulties experienced by farmers as a consequence of the very wet weather over much of the growing season. I have monitored the situation very carefully. Over the summer, my advisers were active, providing technical advice and assistance to producers. Furthermore, an extensive advisory programme is planned for the coming months, starting later this week with open days at the Agricultural Research Institute at Hillsborough.
As well as that practical assistance, I have worked hard to secure a relaxation of European Union grazing rules on set-aside land and achieved a satisfactory outcome last month, together with an increase in cattle subsidy advance payments. The possibility of wet weather payments remains open; however, to release the necessary funds, any such scheme must first secure European Union state aid approval and the agreement of the Executive. In both cases, concrete evidence will be required to support the argument for financial assistance, and such evidence cannot be gathered until the end of the growing season. My officials have made arrangements to meet the European Union Commission to explore the options in the light of the evidence, and I have written to the Executive to brief them on the situation.


The growing season is coming to an end, the cereal harvest is almost finished, and most farmers say that their cereal crops have been significantly reduced. The potato harvest is about to commence with low expectations from potato farmers. Will the Minister assure the House that as soon as the crops have been harvested, her Department will seek financial assistance for the farming community? Many farmers have suffered greatly over the past few years as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and BSE, and the weather this year has been a terrible blow to the farming community.


I assure Mr Poots, as I did in my first response, that my officials and I have been monitoring the situation. If there is a case to be made to the European Commission we will begin to build it as soon as the growing season ends. However, we shall not seek financial assistance from Europe. In the first place, we will seek state aid approval from Europe; if that is granted, I must find the resources in our own block budget and get the Executive’s approval. I have already spoken on this matter to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and to the Executive, and they are aware of the farmers’ plight.
There was very wet weather during the 1999 season in the Orkney Islands, yet by the time the case had been made, the EU state aid approved and resources allocated, it was the following June before payments were made to farmers. Farmers should not expect financial assistance before the end of the year. It will take some time for the money to become available.
In the meantime, through measures such as the winter management workshops, the Department is doing everything possible to help farmers cope. I recently visited a farm. I am, therefore, aware of the damage that has been done to the ground by poaching and of the loss and additional costs that farmers will incur if their feed bills increase.


Does the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, understand the unique circumstances and difficulties faced by farmers in the Six Counties after the wettest growing season in years, while England enjoyed considerably better weather conditions? Does she understand the massive water shortages and high meal costs in the summer months and the lack of extra fodder available to farmers in other parts of Ireland?


Funding for wet weather payments is the responsibility of the EU Commission. In June 2002, I alerted Mrs Beckett to the situation in Northern Ireland, and I wrote to her in July to update her. If, therefore, we have a case, Mrs Beckett, as the UK Minister to the EU Commission, will make it for us.


Does the Minister agree that the changes to the weather and seasonal patterns seem to be becoming the norm, rather than the exception? In the light of that, does she agree that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s planning and the pattern of grants on offer may have to change? Will she consider the impact of the changing conditions on the vulnerable rural and urban areas along the east Antrim coastline in the boroughs of Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus and Larne?


I cannot comment on climate change; it is somewhat beyond my remit. The impact of the changing conditions is, however, a growing problem, but, given that the grants and subsidies come from Europe, it is not in my competence to change the payment system.


Will the Minister comment on east Antrim?


Some issues, such as flooding, are in my remit through the Department’s Rivers Agency. However, many other issues fall in the remits of the Department of the Environment and the Water Service. A mechanism has been initiated whereby, with the Department of the Environment, the Rivers Agency and other relevant agencies, the Department provides a rapid response team that ensures that, if people have a problem with flooding, they can contact the correct agency and will not be passed from pillar to post. The Department of the Environment is responsible for planning, building and developing flood plains.


I recognise that the Minister and her Department have done much in the past to help the agriculture industry cope with the BSE and foot-and-mouth disease crises. The bad weather is compounding the difficulties faced by the farmers who are recovering from those problems. Does the Minister agree that the farming community requires much more help? What questions is the Commission likely to ask regarding the state aid application?


The Commission will wish to verify that the level of loss incurred exceeds 30% in the lowland areas and 20% in the less-favoured areas, which are the minimum thresholds specified in the state aid guidelines. The Commission will also want to be satisfied that any proposed aid is accurately targeted at those losses and that there is no risk of overcompensation or market distortion.


The Minister has acknowledged the damage caused by the prolonged period of wet weather, particularly to dairy farmers’ land. Will she agree to the introduction of a reseeding scheme to improve the quality of grazing land for next year?


The allocation of any grant, including a reseeding grant, depends on EU state aid approval. I have seen the fields, and I am aware of the problem, but we must go through that mechanism.

Tagging Scheme

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail any discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in Britain or the Republic of Ireland about the possible introduction of a Northern Ireland tagging scheme.
(AQO175/02)


The European Union determines the legislative requirements for tagging cattle and sheep. The cattle-tagging provisions have been in place for many years, and the tags must include letters that identify the member state of origin. European Union proposals on sheep identification are to be brought forward shortly. Pigs are not required to be tagged, although they must have an identifying mark or tattoo before leaving their premises of birth.
My officials have raised with the European Commission the possibility of having letters that identify the region of origin included in the cattle-tagging arrangements. Hitherto, the Commission has not accepted that. I will continue to seek that provision for cattle, and for sheep if necessary, and to seek support from ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic of Ireland as appropriate.


Why has the Minister not made a stronger case for tagging beef from Northern Ireland? That case should be pushed more strongly than it has been. Beef from Northern Ireland is tagged as British, and it should be tagged as having come from Northern Ireland. That would be of great benefit to the farming community. Why is the Minister not pushing for that in Europe?


I am a little confused, because beef is not tagged — cattle are. Is the Member referring to cattle tagging?


Yes.


I shall, with the support of my ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic, seek to secure the European Commission’s agreement to have letters that identify the region of origin included in the ear tag. Indeed, I have already raised that. However, the introduction of a single ear tag for Northern Ireland is unlikely, as EU rules require the inclusion of letters in a tag to identify the member state of origin, which in our case is the UK. That is the rule in the European Commission; it allows only the member state to identify cattle. Marketing issues can be dealt with through the method of beef labelling that is eventually chosen, though we must abide by certain rules in that respect also. That is the current position. I have raised the issue, but I am reluctant to say that I have the power to change the European Commission’s rules as easily as all that.


Question 7 was grouped, and we should move to Question 8. However, Mr Gibson is not in his place.

Cattle Imported from the Republic of Ireland

9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement about the regulations that allow the import of weaning cattle from the Republic of Ireland, cattle subsequently labelled as "Quality British Beef", and the timescales involved in this practice.
(AQO168/02)

Date-Based Export Scheme

12. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the European Commission’s decision to relax the date-based export scheme rules for Northern Ireland.
(AQO156/02)


Beef cattle that are born in the Republic of Ireland cannot be labelled as "Quality British Beef". Under EC beef-labelling rules, only beef derived from animals that are born, reared and slaughtered in the UK may be labelled as British.


Does the Minister have any plans to introduce a marketing label device, which will admit weaned cattle imported from the Irish Republic? It was tradition, prior to the establishment of this Assembly, for farmers to buy store cattle from the Irish Republic for fattening. Those cattle came up as weanlings at around six months of age. Would it be possible for such cattle to be labelled for marketing purposes as British beef?


That is a marketing and a commercial issue, and not one for the Minister to address. I am aware of the problem, and I discussed it with the industry. Beef labelling must state where the animal was sourced, slaughtered, and so on. It is a commercial issue as to whether such beef is regarded as British or Irish beef.


Following the French relaxation of the ban on beef from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs to see if we can get orders in France?


The Member asked if I would be making representations to whom?


Will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs or the relevant Department?


I hope that the French market will now be available. We expect, on foot of the decision taken by the French food standards agency, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), that the French Government will move very quickly to remove the ban. The indications are that that will be the case. I expect that we will then be in a position to export beef to France under the new date-based export scheme (DBES) rules. I will do all in my power as Minister to encourage support for Northern Irish beef in the French market — within the rules of competition, of course. My officials have been in discussion with some of the meat factories, which are anxious to begin exporting, especially to France, as there is a market for our beef there. That is good news for the farmers.


Bearing in mind the Minister’s answer to question 9, and noting my own question 12, what percentage of cattle, slaughtered for human consumption, is eligible for the date-based export system, and what steps are the Department taking to improve the percentage of eligible animals?
Finally, does the Minister expect to see an increase in beef and sheep-meat prices to farmers, given that export processors should now enjoy a wider range of markets?


I will take the last part of the Member’s question first — yes, I hope to see an increase in prices for the farmers because of wider markets.
In relation to the number of cattle eligible for the date-based export scheme, about 50% or 60% of cattle in a typical month are export eligible under the scheme. Many more cattle would be eligible if notification of animal births and movements were made on time by herd keepers. I am committed to ensuring that the EU rules of cattle identification and traceability are fully implemented. To that effect, I am phasing in additional control measures, including individual animal and herd restrictions for cattle identification and movement irregularities, as required by EU Regulations. Better compliance with animal identification and movement rules should, in turn, increase the date-based export scheme eligibility in the future.


Mr John Kelly, Mr Hilditch, and Mr Conor Murphy are not in their places, so we will move to question 16.

Delays — Vision Report Action Plan

16. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the series of delays which have occurred in the delivery of the vision report action plan.
(AQO166/02)


I note that none of those Members are from Armagh, so there is no excuse for their being absent today.
I consulted widely on the vision group report, after its publication in October 2001. In March 2002, I announced 11 measures, addressing 30 of the vision group’s recommendations, which could be implemented without additional resources. My original intention was to release the full vision group action plan at the end of June 2002. However, I decided to delay its publication until November 2002, so that account could be taken of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I emphasise that the delay in announcing the vision group action plan will not cause any delay in the implementation of the recommendations. In addition to allowing me to make adjustments in response to the mid-term review, the delay will enable me to bring all my proposals together in one announcement, which, among other things, will deal with my response to the food body working group.


Minister, your time is up.

Assembly Commission

Mrs Eileen Bell will respond on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Mr Paisley Jnr is not in his place, so we will move to question 2.

Information Leaflet

2. asked the Assembly Commission if it has any plans to publish a public information leaflet on the workings of the Assembly.
(AQO128/02)


The Assembly Commission has agreed a wide-ranging information strategy that addresses not only the information needs of the Assembly but the needs of the public for information about the Assembly and its business. The strategy is in the public domain by way of the Assembly web site. The strategy recognises the need to produce and present information in ways that best meet the needs of different groups, such as schools, special interest groups, academics, Departments and the public in general.
In order to implement the information strategy, the Executive Information Office has recently recruited two education officers to develop an information and education programme about the Assembly and its work. As part of that programme, a series of public information leaflets dealing with various aspects of the Assembly’s work will be produced. Proposals for the design and content of the first of those leaflets will be put to the Assembly Commission for approval in the next few weeks.


I am pleased to hear that, finally, something is being done. I hold in my hand the Scottish Parliament’s information leaflets, which have been available to the public for many years. They contain everything from information on the devolved Parliament and guidance for witnesses giving evidence to Committees, to how to approach MSPs. It is an excellent educational information brochure. Given the value of the work being done by our colleagues across the water, I am disappointed that the Assembly Commission did not make it a priority to get information to the public sooner.
Why has it taken so long to produce an information strategy? Will leaflets of the same type and quality as the Scottish Parliament’s be available at least before the end of the year? Will the Assembly Commission consider setting aside a budget for educational and/or information tools for younger primary schoolchildren who, after a tour of the Building, leave totally empty-handed? That is not the case in some local councils, where children who visit leave with pencils or rubbers. Will the Commission agree to set aside a budget for such a valuable educational tool for everyone, and especially for young people?


On a personal level, I agree with everything that the Member has said. The Assembly Commission has been considering all aspects of information strategies for young people and the public in general. Education officers will consider some of the aspects relating to young people that you mentioned. We have decided to implement the simple strategy of giving children a pencil. Plans are in the melting pot at present, but we will inform the Assembly of our work as it progresses.
I agree that the Scottish pack is a good idea. I have given the Assembly Commission samples of it, because it hopes to produce a similar pack. Members’ points will be noted in Hansard and taken on board as part of the discussion exercise.


Will that happen before Christmas?


The Commission has discussed the matter, but I cannot give the Member a timetable.

Press Access

3. asked the Assembly Commission whether it has any plans to review press access arrangements to Parliament Buildings.
(AQO127/02)


Before devolution, a press liaison group was established to discuss matters of mutual interest, including media access and facilities in Parliament Buildings. A press lobby system to facilitate access was proposed, but the press did not find that proposal appropriate.
Earlier this year, after a meeting between media representatives and the Assembly Commission, it was agreed that the Commission would consider proposals to enhance press access in the Buildings. It was agreed that media representatives would reconsider the proposal to establish a press lobby and then offer its views to the Commission. To date, that has not happened.
A key consideration of the Commission is the facilitation of Assembly business and the provision of a safe working environment for Members, staff and the visiting public. The Commission values the role of the press in promoting a better understanding of the Assembly and its Committees, and would welcome proposals for improving press access.


I was disappointed at the press fallout after the Queen’s visit and other occasions. The Assembly has managed to make an enemy rather than a friend of the press. Media facilities and access do not appear to be a problem in other devolved institutions. I cannot understand why the liaison committee never met; perhaps it could be re-established urgently. I ask the Commission to take the issue seriously, so that the apparent lack of communication as regards press access during the Queen’s visit does not arise again. The same approach should apply to press access during visits by other dignitaries, and to the provision of information that we wish the press to report. The Assembly seems to have fallen foul in that regard, and the press seem to end up reporting negatively on it.


I agree; however, the Commission and the press have met to discuss proposals many times. We are considering their proposals for access and better information, and I hope that they are considering ours. The press conference arena in the basement of the Building is rarely used. The Head of Security, the Speaker, and other Members who deal with the press met representatives, and the Commission also met the Chairpersons’ Liaison Group. I hope that proposals will result from those meetings.
I take on board the Member’s comments; however, the Commission has already tried the approach that she suggested. I hope that the Assembly will be able to establish a better relationship and better communication with the press. The Commission shares the Members hope that the problems that arose in the past do not happen again.

Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations
draft fixed term employees (prevention of less favourable treatment) regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002
part-time workers (prevention of less favourable treatment) (amendment) regulations (northern Ireland) 2002

Debate resumed on motion:
That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved. — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved. — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]


I remind Members that the Minister has grouped the motions on the draft Fixed Term Employees Regulations and the Part-Time Workers Regulations for debate. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Minister to do the winding-up speech and put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move the second motion before putting the question without further debate. If that is clear, I shall proceed.


I shall continue where I left off.
I am aware that fixed-term contracts are used in sectors ranging from higher education to the hospitality industry. In some instances, sectors or organisations may wish to tailor the mechanism limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to suit their needs better. Therefore the Regulations provide for employers and employees to increase or decrease the four-year limit or to agree a different way in order to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by collective or workforce agreements. Those agreements could, for example, specify allowable reasons for renewing fixed-term contracts beyond the statutory limit.
It is important that the law does not permit fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. Therefore these Regulations also amend provisions in certain parts of some Orders, which, unless amended, would allow some or all fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. For example, the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 permits fixed-term employees to waive their right to redundancy payments. The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will remove that redundancy waiver.
The modest costs associated with these Regulations are more than offset by the advantages that they bring in fairness and the ending of the potential for discrimination. The regulatory impact assessment commissioned by my Department estimated costs to the private sector of about £1 million to £4 million. The Regulations will create an even playing field for employers of fixed-term contract employees. However, it is right that fixed-term employees should be treated no less favourably than permanent employees.
I now turn to the two amendments to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These Regulations make it unlawful for employers to treat part-timers less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions of employment unless different treatment can be justified objectively.
Under the present Part-Time Workers Regulations, part-time workers must compare themselves to full-timers employed under a similar contract. The amendment will allow part-time workers to compare themselves with full-time staff on both permanent and fixed-term contracts. That will ensure that part-time workers on fixed-term contracts are not treated less favourably than permanent workers.
The second amendment also aims at bringing the Part-Time Workers Regulations into line with the Fixed Term Employees Regulations. At present, if an industrial tribunal upholds a complaint from a part-time worker about equal access to an occupational pension scheme, the remedy awarded may not exceed a limit of two years’ worth of employer contributions. That reflects the House of Lords ruling in February 2001 in the case of Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others. The amendment Regulations remove that restriction.
Compliance costs are estimated to be low. Those employers who treat their part-time workers equally to their full-time staff will experience no direct costs. The days where most of the labour force worked nine to five in a job for life are past. It is widely recognised that a more flexible approach is not only good for employees, but it can also enhance competitiveness. In this context, it is particularly important to protect the rights of the growing numbers on fixed-term and part-time contracts. Fixed-term and part-time work allows people to participate in the labour market who, perhaps due to family or other commitments, may not wish to accept permanent or full-time employment.
For their part, employers should see the benefits of greater loyalty and commitment among their fixed-term and part-time staff. Overall, the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 contribute to improving employment rights in the workforce, and I commend both sets of Regulations to the Assembly.


I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the late delivery to the Committee of the Statutory Rule relating to part-time workers. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support both sets of Regulations.
With reference to the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, the Committee considered the pre-draft Statutory Rule at its meeting on 9 May 2002 and had no objections to the policy implications of the proposed legislation at that stage. The Committee noted that the equality impact assessment on the proposed Regulations indicated that there would be no adverse impact on any of the section 75 groups. The Minister referred to the regulatory impact assessment, and the Committee noted that it estimated a net cost to employers ranging from £1·5 million to £7·6 million, with about half of that falling on the public sector. It was expected that very little cost would fall on small businesses.
The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its most recent meeting on Thursday 19 September and supported its key objectives, especially the prevention of discrimination against fixed-term employees.
On behalf of the Committee, I urge support for the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002). These Regulations amend the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (SR 219/2000) and are due to come into force on 1 October. As with the previous Statutory Rule, the original date for implementation was 1 July 2002, but the Department of Trade and Industry in London requested that further time be given to the UK to implement the EU Directive on fixed-term work.
The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its meeting on 19 September 2002 and supported the key objectives outlined by the Minister. The first is to maintain consistency with the EU Directive on fixed-term work, and the second is to comply with the judgment made by the House of Lords in the Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Given that the amendments have been taken as part of an European Directive, and the fact that many women have to take part-time or fixed-term work due to family commitments, I am glad to see that the prevention of less favourable treatment has been taken on board by the Minister. Could we not do more, above and beyond what the EU suggests, to make working conditions for part-time and fixed-term workers even more favourable to the needs of working parents?


I also welcome the introduction of the Statutory Rules. As Michelle Gildernew said, they originated from European Directives. The people concerned were once commonly known as atypical workers, but the days when we had the typical worker from nine to five on a permanent contract are long gone. Many employees now have atypical working patterns, so the more inclusive our legislation, the better, especially with regard to the prevention of less favourable treatment.
I remember when part-time workers began to secure some rights along the same lines as full-time workers. The first thing that employers did was make their part-time workers redundant, since, they said, they could not implement the Regulation without considerable cost to themselves. Clearly, equality issues were involved. I know of some dispute involving Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster. In particular, the University of Ulster’s fixed-term employees think that they will lose their jobs before the legislation comes into force.
When the legislation comes into force, what will happen to the employer of a person who has been working for four years on a fixed-term contract — I believe that that is the term in the legislation — if he or she decides to replace them? What are the employee’s rights if he or she wishes to take that employer to court or to a tribunal because of unfair dismissal? Those of us who are familiar with labour relations know that many part-time workers did not benefit from previous legislation; they simply lost their jobs as a consequence.


Today’s workforce is an increasingly diverse entity. I firmly believe that such enhanced flexibility brings considerable benefits to employers and workers alike. It is therefore important that those who wish to work on fixed-term or part-time contracts are not discouraged from doing so by the threat of less favourable treatment. I welcome the remarks of the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning and his acceptance of reassurances.
We are dealing with specific issues in the legislation, but Members are probably aware that an employment status review is under way. I hope that issues outside the legislation will be taken up through that. That probably does not answer the specific question regarding Queen’s University, but I do not think I could answer that now, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so here. However, I shall most certainly do so in writing.
The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will protect the rights of the increasing number of individuals on fixed-term, or part-time, contracts who might otherwise suffer detrimental work habits compared with their permanent or full-time colleagues. Such workers have an important role to play in helping to meet organisations’ needs for more flexible labour solutions which contribute to the creation of high-performance workplaces.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.
Resolved:
That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that questions 1, 2, and 5 in the names of Mr Gibson, Mr Fee and Mr John Kelly have been withdrawn and will receive written answers. Question 8, in the name of Mr McGrady, has also been withdrawn.

OFMDFM (Staff Numbers)

Mr Alban Maginness: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail how the numbers working in its Department compare with the numbers in (i) the Prime Minister’s office and (ii) the Taoiseach’s office.
(AQO154/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: We welcome the opportunity to clarify the distinction between a private office and a Department. Thirty-one staff are employed in our joint private office, including our private secretaries, special advisers and administrative support as well as a team that handles the large volume of correspondence that we receive.
Our Department has a wide range of functions that have been conferred on it by statute or that have been added by the Assembly from time to time. The Department’s responsibilities go far beyond those of the Prime Minister’s office or that of the Taoiseach. Our Department has a unique role and remit, covering equality and community relations policies and programmes, economic policy and European matters. It also supports the Executive as a whole and, indeed, supports and facilitates the work of the full range of Departments and Ministers. That is clearly shown in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the work of the Executive secretariat, the Economic Policy Unit and the Executive information service.
On 2 September, 417 staff were in post in the Department. Some 383 are directly engaged in the Department’s work, and the remainder are posted to those independent bodies for which the Department is responsible for providing staffing support, such as the Planning Appeals Commission and the International Fund for Ireland. A more detailed summary has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Alban Maginness: It would appear from the Deputy First Minister’s answer — and I invite him to agree — that the number of staff employed means that the people of Northern Ireland are getting value for money. The staff are targeted, deal effectively and efficiently with their work and are by no means disproportionate to the needs of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has called for more resources for the Department. Would the Deputy First Minister like to comment on that?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member is correct that the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has made the point on several occasions that insufficient resources are being committed to the OFMDFM. He has made that point in relation to e-government and European policy matters. Indeed, the Committee of the Centre observed in a report that more staff and financial resources are necessary.
We must also remember that some people who work in OFMDFM are working on, for example, the review of public administration. Many of those people have been brought in from elsewhere in the public service and will be on our payroll only for the duration of that review.
People misunderstand the comparisons made about OFMDFM, the Taoiseach’s office and Downing Street. A fair comparison might be made between the central co-ordination functions of OFMDFM and the Cabinet Office, which has a staff of more than 2,000. The Equality Unit and a range of other services have to be provided for somewhere in the Government, and the Assembly agreed that they would be assigned to OFMDFM.

Rev Robert Coulter: Would OFMDFM’s responsibility for functions beyond central co-ordination be better sited elsewhere, leaving a leaner, slimmer Department to discharge its primary all-important function of co-ordinating Government?

Mr Mark Durkan: The composition of Departments and the distribution of their functions are determined by the Assembly, having been proposed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When departmental functions are reviewed, it is conceivable that some responsibilities that are currently in the remit of OFMDFM could be reassigned to other Departments. However, some OFMDFM functions support the Executive as well as the work of Departments and their impact on other bodies such as the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The Executive are working not only to support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister but to facilitate the work of all Ministers and Departments. Some units lend themselves naturally to central office, such as OFMDFM’s role in providing Executive support, while units that deal with other Government work or specialist areas could be considered for reassignment. However, those units and functions will not disappear: many existed before the creation of OFMDFM; some, such as the Equality Unit, are new and required new resources and commitments. Many Members have pointed out that such areas require more finance and additional personnel.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Members will be surprised by the Deputy First Minister’s defence of the £13·2 million spent on the creation of jobs for David Trimble’s cronies and on UUP election failures.
Is the Deputy First Minister aware of panic in the OFMDFM as staff frantically search through the jobs columns of newspapers at the prospect of being out of work by 18 January 2003, as the First Minister yet again gets tough on the IRA? Or have OFMDFM’s employees taken the same cynical view as the rest of the population with regard to another deadline — yet again given before an election — which is never carried through? That deadline will go the same way as the deadlines given before the Assembly elections, the local council elections and the Westminster elections.

Mr Mark Durkan: The staff of OFMDFM and the relevant pay and rations bill, involves many civil servants. The Member refers to a budget of £13 million and suggests that it is connected to cronies of either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. That suggestion is entirely misplaced. The majority of jobs in OFMDFM existed before the establishment of that Department; it was a matter of which Department those jobs would be located in. The setting up of the Executive, new structures and equality responsibilities meant that new jobs had to be created, which had to be assigned somewhere. There is an argument for a dedicated Equality Unit, which would require many staff. The issue should be treated fairly. Today in OFMDFM people were reading the excellent newspaper coverage of the fantastic success of the Derry minor team and the Armagh senior team rather than panicking and searching frantically for new jobs.

Mr Sammy Wilson: So they do not believe David Trimble either.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Police Training College Location

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it has met with the Chairman of the Policing Board to discuss the location of the police training college, and if it intends to support the Policing Board recommendation to locate the college at the site of HMP Maze.
(AQO125/02)

Discussions with Chairman of the Policing Board

Mr Edwin Poots: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what discussions it has had with the Chairman of the Policing Board.
(AQO159/02)

Rt Hon David Trimble: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. There have been several informal discussions between Ministers and the chairman of the Policing Board on the location of the police training college. We are aware of the board’s interest in the Maze site. However, our use of that site is subject to the terms of our agreement with the Treasury, which cover all the sites to be transferred to the Executive, free of charge, under our reinvestment and reform initiative. Those terms include an undertaking on our part to plan the development of each site strategically, with a view to maximising the benefit of the economic and social regeneration of local communities. To this end, members of the reinvestment and reform initiative project board have recently visited all the sites, and we look forward to receiving their advice. In the specific case of the important site at the Maze, we must also take into account proposals for the development of the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. As far as I am aware, there have been no discussions with the chairman of the Policing Board on any other matter.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The First Minister deliberately failed to answer the part of the question that interests most people. Does he support the proposal to locate a new police training college at the Maze site? That is critical, given that his party unanimously endorsed that position at a Policing Board meeting. Is it the case that, at a meeting over the summer months with the chairman of the Policing Board, he suggested that the Maze site was worth £1 million per acre and that, as a result, he could not justify giving that land to the board? Does he now stand as the impediment to progress in the creation of a first-class, twenty-first century training college for police officers in Northern Ireland? Will he now commit himself to locating a police college at that site?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am afraid that, yet again, Junior is misinformed. I have had no meeting with the chairman of the Policing Board. There was a telephone conversation. I did not make the comment that he attributed to me. I do not know who may have said it, but I certainly did not, and I do not know where that invention came from.
I refer the Member to my original answer. The Maze site was transferred to us free of charge. If the Member thinks about that for a moment, he will realise the enormous problems we would face if we subsequently transferred to the Northern Ireland Office property that was given to us free and for a purpose. Clear conditions are attached to the use of the property. We would experience considerable difficulties with the Treasury if we departed from them.
There is a further factor to be considered. The total area, including not only the Maze site, but the Ministry of Defence property, amounts to more than 300 acres. The site is centrally located at a strategic point in Northern Ireland. It is clearly irresponsible to deal with this in a piecemeal manner without considering how to maximise the benefit in the broader sense, not only financially, but socially, for Northern Ireland as a whole. I would have thought that the Member’s colleague in the Department for Regional Development would want to reconsider strategic plans in view of the significance of this site rather than fritter the opportunity away. Of course we want to see a first-class police college there, but the Member should be more responsible and not propose to squander significant assets in such a way.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Edwin Poots: The First Minister made a very convincing argument for placing the police college at the Maze site. It is strategically placed, in a central location, and there is an abundance of land. Those are all good reasons to support locating a police college there. Is Mr Trimble saying that he is opposed to setting up a police college on a central site? People want more police officers on the streets, and his office is holding back better policing by delaying the opportunity to develop a police college.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The reason for the delay in establishing a new police college, one of the few proposals in the Patten Report that we favoured, is the Treasury’s failure to provide the appropriate finance. That is a reserved matter for the Northern Ireland Office. I support plans for a first-class police college, but its provision is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and the Policing Board. Many sites in Northern Ireland could be considered. Mr Poots might wish to seek the views of his constituents in the Maze area.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The First Minister must find it at least ironic, and at worst contradictory, to answer a question on a site for a new police training college two days after he threatened the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001, to which his party Colleagues on the Policing Board contributed. Is the Policing Board seeking to use the Maze Prison site, the Ministry of Defence site, or both?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sure that Ms Lewsley is very glad that on Saturday we managed to save the agreement, to give it another chance to succeed and to prevent it from collapsing, which it otherwise would have done. We need to put that in context.
In response to Ms Lewsley’s question, we have only the Policing Board’s press release to go on. The board stated that the new police training college could be located on the Maze site, and it made reference to "the extensive site at the former prison". No reference was made to the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. Any use of part of the Maze site would have to take account of the whole area. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not made a decision on the matter because it is unable to do so. However, we have asked the reform and reinvestment initiative project board for its advice, and we think that the matter should be considered strategically.

Mr Speaker: Question 6, in the name of Mr McNamee, has been withdrawn. Questions 1 and 5 were fully withdrawn and will not receive written answers.

EPCU and Republic of Ireland’s EU Policy

Mr Barry McElduff: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail its European Policy Co-Ordination Unit’s (EPCU) efforts to ensure that the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account in the formulation of the Republic of Ireland’s EU policy.
(AQO137/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: In December 2001, the North/South Ministerial Council agreed that a working group should be set up to consider the arrangements to give effect to paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement. Three meetings of the working group, which on the Northern Ireland side were led by the EPCU, have now taken place, and the North/South Ministerial Council has endorsed a progress report. That commits each sector to consider at its next ministerial meeting whether any EU issues require attention, and an assessment will be given at the next plenary meeting.
Future deliberations of the working group will consider how the views of the Council can be reflected appropriately at relevant EU meetings. Provision is also made in the common chapter for joint initiatives, and responsibility for promoting and monitoring that work falls to the Special EU Programmes Body, which will produce a progress report next year.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be in the best interests of the people of the Six Counties of Ireland were treated as a single economic unit of a wider European Union? Can he confirm or deny whether the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has met, or intends to meet, Mr Dick Roche TD, Minister of State for European Affairs.

Mr Mark Durkan: The North/South Ministerial Council has been examining EU issues in its plenary sessions. In addition, the different sectoral bodies will consider any EU issues that arise. Those matters will be the subject of a further report to the North/South Ministerial Council. Further meetings, involving a variety of Ministers, possibly the First Minister and me, may arise from that. I hope that Mr McElduff appreciates that I am reluctant to get involved in meetings outside the North/ South Ministerial Council in circumstances in which a threat or question mark may be placed on the Council format.
We best serve the entire community’s interests by maintaining the type of democratic arrangements that we have here, by pursuing our opportunities for North/South and east-west co-operation on a whole range of policy matters and by addressing those EU policy issues that concern us on that sort of co-operative basis. We hope to continue to work in that way and to work for positive development in the EU itself, which the Member may not favour so strongly.

Mr Joe Byrne: Further to the Deputy First Minister’s answer, does he agree that all parties in the Executive committed themselves to implementing all parts of the agreement, including the North/South Ministerial Council, which is a vital part of the agreement? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be illegal not to nominate? Can he confirm how he plans to handle the nomination of Ministers to future meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Mark Durkan: In the ‘Declaration of Support’ all the parties involved committed themselves to the full operation of all the arrangements under the agreement. Those arrangements include the North/South Ministerial Council. There are other institutional arrangements — the Assembly, the Executive and the British-Irish Council. There are also other arrangements established under the agreement, such as the Policing Board. I recognise that the agreement committed me, and my party, to all those arrangements. As Deputy First Minister, I continue to discharge those commitments in full.
A schedule of meetings for the North/South Ministerial Council exists. I will play my part in providing nominations for those North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Should there not be nominations for those meetings, we know that that has been a matter of legal consideration previously, and we are also aware of the judgement in that case.

Community Relations Discussions with NIO

Mr Roy Beggs: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail any recent discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the subject of community relations.
(AQO147/02)

Rt Hon David Trimble: At a meeting on 13 August involving Minister Haughey, Minister Leslie and Des Browne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mr Browne outlined progress on his initiative on interface violence. That has involved a series of meetings with political parties and other key interests. Subsequently, on 12 September, Mr Browne issued a press release summarising progress on those meetings.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the First Minister agree that the actions of paramilitaries, both Loyalist and Republican, are fomenting community conflicts and have undermined efforts to improve community relations in both interface areas and the wider community? Has he highlighted to the Northern Ireland Office the adverse effects that paramilitary actions have had on community relations and on public confidence in the democratic process?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There appears to be significant evidence to indicate that community division, particularly in interface areas, is now greater than it has been at any point in the last quarter of a century. The deterioration of the position, which is contrary to what one would have expected subsequent to the agreement, is wholly attributable to the actions of Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries at those interfaces. There is no doubt that the conflict that we have seen at interfaces during the summer has had a dramatic impact on community confidence; that is true to such an extent that as a result of the behaviour of paramilitaries, the future is not good, and these institutions are at risk.
I am sure that the Member listened with me in disgust to Mitchel McLaughlin this morning crying crocodile tears over the threat to the institutions when it is his colleagues and their nocturnal activities who pose the greatest threat.

Mr Sammy Wilson: And you who sit in government with them.

Rt Hon David Trimble: You too.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Review of Public Administration

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 11. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what progress has been made on the review of public administration.
(AQO146/02)

Mr Mark Durkan: Since the launch of the review of public administration on 24 June, the review team has made significant progress. An initial pre-consultation process with a range of stakeholders began in late August and will conclude on 11 October 2002. That involves more than 60 meetings with representatives of local government, public bodies, health bodies, education bodies, the Civic Forum, organisations that look after the interests of public sector staff, the community and voluntary sector, rural interests, political parties and the business sector, et cetera. It is a listening exercise that will help to inform the development of a formal consultation document that will be published later this year.
The team has initiated a major programme of research. During the summer it commissioned several briefing papers on topics such as accountability, public sector reform and subsidiarity. Those papers will be made available to the public on the review team’s web site by the end of the month.
Other elements of the research programme include a major exercise to map the public sector, attitudinal work and focus groups.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: The Deputy First Minister has outlined some aspects of the pre-consultation process. However, when does he plan to implement the more public aspects of the consultation, as it is important that we get to that point as soon as possible? Many people who are not members of the bodies to which the Deputy First Minister referred may want to have an input.

Mr Mark Durkan: As I have said, the team is already meeting with a range of stakeholders. It is conscious of the need for meaningful engagement with the end-users of public services and, along with a panel of experts, is actively considering the best way to carry that out at each stage of the review. At this early stage, the team is gathering initial public views through the Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey and through the establishment of a focus group project. The formal consultation will then be drafted on the basis of those initial soundings, and that should proceed on the timetable that was outlined when the review was launched in June.

Mr Speaker: I have no further requests for supplementary questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, as we are a little before the time assigned for questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure I suggest that the House takes its leisure — culture and arts to the side — until 3.00 pm.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Football Strategy

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline (a) the status of his football strategy and (b) when he hopes to see the strategy fully implemented.
(AQO162/02)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In my statement to the Assembly on 25 June 2002, I called for a commitment from the Irish Football Association (IFA) to sign up to a package of measures consistent with the recommendations contained in the advisory panel’s report, published in October 2001. Since then the IFA, with support from the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and in consultation with others, has been working on the preparation of a long-term development plan for the game. I understand that the plan was discussed by the IFA council on Monday 16 September 2002. I have not yet seen a copy of the development plan but look forward to seeing one in the very near future. Subject to the time frame contained in the IFA’s development plan, I anticipate that implementation will take place over the next five to 10 years.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I know that we cannot second-guess or pre-empt the plan, but, if the Minister hopes to see it implemented over a five- to 10-year period, could he give us some flavour of what general progress and advances he would hope to make?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The progress which we hope to make is the development and advancement of the game. A key thing that the development plan must have is the backing of the wider football community. There must be opportunities and benefits for all levels of football. It is not simply about the international team or senior football but the sport at all levels right down to the grass roots, including boys’ and women’s soccer and disability sports. It is essential that it be based on fundamental principles of fairness, inclusiveness, accountability, leadership and transparency. That is the goal and the vision that we seek. The advisory panel published 150 recommendations. When I finally get the IFA’s plan, I shall carefully examine it to see the correlation with our own strategy; I hope that there will be a very close match. If there is not a close match, I shall have to consider the next step.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has confirmed that there has been a delay on the part of the IFA in responding to the football strategy. Given that delay, does he feel that the football strategy can still be delivered in the reduced timescale and within the lifetime of this Assembly?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The strategic plan outlined by the panel looks far into the future for implementation. Time is getting short for an IFA decision to support the strategy, and the Member is quite right to point to the fact that the lifetime of this Assembly is drawing to a close. I asked the IFA to give me a response by September. I understand from press reports that it now has a development plan, but it has not yet given it to me. I have not seen it; the Department has not seen it. I should have thought that I might have received it by now. I look forward to getting it, at which time I shall carefully scrutinise it. I shall probably also return to the original panel to seek its advice.
One of the key things that I shall be seeking is support from the wider football family. Only if the entire football family in Northern Ireland is prepared to back the strategy can we make it work.

Mr Sam Foster: In commending the Minister for the initiative and drive he has shown in his football strategy, which contains a great many good and meaningful measures, I trust that the small junior football clubs will not be forgotten in any way, enabling them to survive and so provide encouragement and decent facilities for junior footballers. Such clubs are the heartbeat of soccer throughout Northern Ireland; their survival is vital for football in general to succeed.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I endorse what Mr Foster has said about junior soccer. As I said in my answer to Dr McDonnell, I see the strategy including the entire football family, with a strong concentration on youth, and on the junior and grass-roots levels as well as the senior game. A sum of £1·6 million has already been made available for youth development, which will provide opportunities for the development of centres of excellence. Nineteen centres have already been announced; there are four more to come, making a total of 23. That shows our desire to concentrate on the grass roots and develop the game not from the top down but from the ground up.

Public Library, Lisburn

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide an update on progress towards providing a new public library in Lisburn.
(AQO160/02)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Before I answer the question, I shall take the opportunity to congratulate Lisburn and Newry on being awarded city status in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year.
When I updated the House in March, I said that the South Eastern Education and Library Board was exploring the provision of a new library for Lisburn under the private finance initiative (PFI) and that the project board had initiated the PFI procurement process. That process is continuing and is at the evaluation stage. I am pleased to say that the project is within the indicative time frame.

Mr Edwin Poots: Although I am pleased to hear that progress is being made on the Lisburn library, we have been waiting for some 25 years for a library in the area that suits the city of Lisburn. Can the Minister give us more concrete information about when a decision will be made to offer the contract to the company involved? When will work start on the new library?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The process was initiated by another Administration. It has been a long process, and there have been difficulties about the Linen Hall site. However, the Department funded the purchase of the site, and a project board has been set up. The Department approved the outline business case in February 2001, and a PFI procurement process was initiated. That process is currently at stage 10 of the 14 stages of the process. I did not design the PFI process. It was appropriate that we continued with it as it had been started before we took office. The process appears to be nearing conclusion, and, all things being equal, the project will start in the spring of 2003. In anticipation of that, the Department has agreed to provide additional funding for the library’s running costs.

Mr Billy Bell: At long last it seems that building work on a new library in Lisburn will start next year. However, the city of Lisburn covers a wide area, and there is also the issue of the public libraries in Moira and Dunmurry. At what stage are the plans for those two libraries?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: There are several libraries in the Lagan Valley constituency, and Billy Bell has highlighted two that are in poor condition in Moira and Dunmurry. The South Eastern Education and Library Board, which is responsible for the provision of libraries, with the support of the Department, is progressing economic appraisals on both those libraries, which will take place in 2003 and 2004 for Dunmurry and Moira respectively. Those are the next two steps that the board is taking with regard to the provision of capital. We recognise that the libraries in Moira and Dunmurry are in poor condition and that they require capital investment.

Mr Jim Wilson: I do not see Mr Gibson in his place to put question 3.

Football Stadium Projects

Mr David Hilditch: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to give his assessment of the proposed new-build football stadium projects announced at various venues in the Province.
(AQO164/02)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have been aware for some time of the problems facing soccer and the need to upgrade many sports stadia, especially soccer stadia, in Northern Ireland to modern standards. I have already taken steps to address some of the problems through the interim safe sports grounds scheme, but this proposal prioritises safety issues. Against that background, I welcome the news that some local football clubs are beginning to negotiate partnerships with local authorities and the private sector, not only to develop more modern stadia but to make them more commercially viable.

Mr David Hilditch: Does the Minister agree that, to date, the refurbishment of sports grounds has only been a sticking-plaster job and has not been successful, even though it has dealt with health and safety? With new interest, especially from the private sector, does the Minister agree that there is a need to review the funding provided through the safe sports grounds scheme?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I do not agree that the refurbishment programme is a "sticking-plaster job". The Executive have devoted £6 million to sports grounds in the past two and a half years. That indicates the support that major sports grounds receive — and, I hope, will continue to receive — from the Executive. That money has been spread across several sports such as soccer, Gaelic football and rugby.
It is important that those involved in football look beyond receiving a Government handout and a Government cheque. That is why I welcome the moves that some soccer clubs are making to find private support and sponsorship, and local authority support. Ballymena United is a prime example of partnership between a football club and its local authority. Bangor FC is looking at a possible partnership with North Down Borough Council to obtain land for a football stadium, and Ards Borough Council has given a portion of land to allow Ards FC to build a new Castlereagh Park. Those are the types of steps that must be taken.
The problem will not be solved by Members coming to the Chamber and asking for money. Resources are scarce, and money should come from a cocktail of resources. It is pleasing that football is beginning to move forward; it gives a sense of anticipation for better and more family-friendly stadia, which is what everyone wants. Therefore, considering what has been invested, it is unfair to describe the refurbishment programme as a "sticking-plaster job".

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the light of the recent sectarian death threats against Neil Lennon and the sectarianism associated with some football grounds, does the Minister agree that any planned projects should proceed only if there is a guaranteed anti-sectarian strategy in place.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Anti-sectarianism policies are a key part of the grants and revenue scheme that was announced under the safe sports ground scheme. Within that scheme, funding will be available under three programmes: safety management; urgent (first-aid) works; and major works. Soccer, Gaelic football and rugby clubs availing of that support are required to have anti-sectarian policies in place.
Sectarianism is one of the evils — if not the evil — of our society. It has been, and continues to be, the engine for so much misery for our people. Therefore, society, the Assembly and the Executive have much to do. It is wrong to characterise sectarianism and say that it is football’s problem. It is not only football’s problem; it is Northern Ireland’s problem. Problems that appear in football are a reflection of society. They appear in other areas, and the Assembly seeks to address those problems.
Football is a key sport that could heal the problem because it is an interface sport that both communities play and through which both communities meet. However, when they meet, there are occasionally disgraceful and appalling scenes. What happened twice to Neil Lennon was disgraceful, and everyone condemned it without question. However, by and large, that sort of thing is rare. Football is a way of bringing society together, and that is one of the reasons why the Executive and the Assembly are seeking to invest in it and in other sports.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland could have benefited from the joint Ireland/ Scotland bid to host the European Championships in 2008, if it were not for the poor standard of the local stadia? Does he further agree that a national stadium is desirable and necessary soon?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I was quoted in ‘The Observer’ yesterday regarding the bid to host the European Championships in 2008, but I did not make a statement to that paper, and the quotes ascribed to me are not entirely accurate. Northern Ireland was not in a position to join that bid because it does not have an international stadium with 30,000 seats. Therefore, if we want to get involved in that tournament, our next opportunity is 2012. However, Northern Ireland cannot do it alone; there would have to be some form of partnership. Scotland was going to make its own bid, but then it decided to seek partners, and it joined up with the Irish Republic. It seems, however, there are difficulties in the South in respect of the delivery of large stadia, so their bid is in question.
The next opportunity for Northern Ireland will be in 2012, but it costs a great deal of money to host that type of tournament, and Northern Ireland would have to find its share of it. If we had that sort of sum to invest in sport, would we want to invest it all in a tournament that lasts a couple of weeks in 2012? We will not even be at first base until we have a stadium of international standards with 30,000 seats. I agree that that is essential.

Football (Offences) Act

Mr Sean Neeson: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline discussions he has had about extending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to Northern Ireland.
(AQO167/02)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My departmental officials and I have had discussions with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, the Irish Football Association and the Police Service about the practicalities of extending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and related legislation to Northern Ireland. The discussions have included consideration of the type of legislation that might be appropriate for Northern Ireland to control spectator behaviour in football grounds, which is the main purpose of the GB Act. Those discussions have also taken place in the context of wider deliberations on the soccer strategy process.

Mr Sean Neeson: Once again, the Neil Lennon saga shows the scourge of sectarianism in football in Northern Ireland; unfortunately, it made headlines across the world. The Football (Offences) Act 1991 largely deals with race, but it could be adjusted because it has been shown to be effective in other parts of Great Britain and Scotland.
In reply to a previous question, the Minister recognised that many Irish League football clubs want to improve their grounds and build new stadia. In the Department’s efforts to encourage clubs to develop football as a family sport, will the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to deal with all aspects of hatred and sectarianism, not only in football but in all sports?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I said in a previous answer and on previous occasions, I was appalled by the Neil Lennon affair. It was disgraceful. I condemned it then, and I condemn it now.
Sectarianism is not simply a problem in football, nor can football on its own solve sectarian problems. Sectarianism is not confined to football. Every activity in Northern Ireland can be marred by sectarian behaviour. Anti-sectarian measures must cover all sports.
The Football (Offences) Act 1991 (c.19) contains regulations against hooliganism and racism. Three of the offences listed are: throwing an object at or towards the pitch or spectators, taking part in indecent or racist chanting and going onto the pitch without lawful authority. The Act was subsequently amended to allow banning orders to ban certain spectators from domestic and international matches, and racist or indecent chanting was specified for acts abroad.
It could be argued that the Act is one person’s solution to another person’s problem. Northern Ireland has public order legislation matching that of Great Britain but which also outlaws sectarian behaviour. Therefore there are weapons on the statute book to deal with sectarianism.
In addition, my Department has had discussions about football with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and with the Irish Football Association (IFA). However, there are problems across the board; therefore any solution must cover sport in general.
The Department is considering legislation that would incorporate the experiences of the mainland as far as the Public Order Act is concerned. It will examine how to tackle sectarianism at all sporting venues in Northern Ireland — not just at football matches. Widespread consultation has begun, and we will try to create suitable legislation. I must stress that legislation alone will not solve the problem and that legislation dealing with sectarianism in football only will be inadequate. Although the events surrounding Neil Lennon hit the headlines, sectarianism occurs at other events and venues, and the solution must go right across the board.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Minister agree that the football authorities in Northern Ireland have done an excellent job in resolving some of the problems in football? Who will pay for enforcing the new measures if we introduce legislation similar to the Football (Offences) Act 1991? Will it be the clubs? My understanding is that, under the new policing arrangements, the police could not afford to pay for it.
Is the Minister happy with the arrangements between the IFA and the police? Will the police stay outside the grounds and let the clubs’ stewards monitor activity inside?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: First, order in the grounds is primarily a matter for those who organise the games, and the police will be called in only as a last resort. Secondly, the Department is some way from deciding the funding to implement any legislation, but it will be examined in the consultation.
I have said several times that steps have been taken to address the issues. It is wrong to think that nothing has been done. Northern Ireland’s public order legislation goes further than that of Great Britain by outlawing religious hatred. It is an offence to arouse fear on the basis of religious belief and nationality. My Department is involved with the IFA’s football for all strategy, which includes a code of conduct for spectators, professionals, stewards, closed-circuit television provision and the appointment of an IFA community relations officer.
The IFA and the Sports Council take that seriously. I commend the work of both organisations, and the IFA have done an excellent job so far. I also commend the police, and how they regularly manage large crowds. However, there is an argument that they may need further provision through legislation, and we will look at that. We will discuss the expense through consultation, look at revenue consequences as part of that process and satisfy those in due course.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister elaborate on the likely cost of such legislation to clubs in Northern Ireland, after his discussions with the police? Will he confirm that it will not only be football clubs, but GAA clubs and others that would be covered by such legislation?
Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party are usually vociferous about sectarian behaviour at football matches. Will the Minister comment on their silence about the sectarian violence perpetrated by those celebrating Armagh’s win in the all-Ireland final, or whatever it is called? Will he condemn the attacks launched on Protestant churches, Orange halls, police stations and individuals who were perceived as Protestants, by GAA supporters over the weekend?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I confirm that the legislation will embrace all sports venues — not just football. As I mentioned in previous answers, it is not a football-only problem; it goes across all sport and all of Northern Ireland society. As I said in my answer to Mr Hutchinson, with regard to cost, we are in the early stages, and we will work out the revenue consequences through that consultation process.
The Armagh team is to be congratulated on its achievement, which is considerable, as is the junior team of Derry. It has been 54 years since two Northern Ireland teams won both titles. It is sad for Gaelic athletics that the success was besmirched by the activities of a minority of fans who behaved disgracefully in Lurgan. I have spoken to officials in Gaelic athletics, and they have no time for that. That type of fan does Gaelic no good, and Gaelic — as with all sports in Northern Ireland — neither needs nor wants them. I also condemn all attacks on Orange halls, police stations and Protestant churches.

All-Ireland Arts Promotion

Mr Barry McElduff: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the nature and extent of all-Ireland co-operation and partnership in promoting the arts.
(AQO143/02)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Arts Council of Northern Ireland and its counterpart in the Republic jointly fund many projects, organisations and individuals. Those include opera, drama companies, poetry publishers, music schemes, art magazines, writers’ centres, storytelling, literature, festivals, individual artists and research programmes.

Mr Barry McElduff: I thank the Minister for his assurances of all-Ireland partnership in promoting the arts. However, I digress to his responsibility for sport. Does the Minister have any plans to formally recognise the achievement of the Armagh team?

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, you can reply extremely briefly, or give the Member a written reply in due course.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The arts in Northern Ireland are organised by the Arts Council, and the arts in the Irish Republic are recognised by their respective counterpart.
Those bodies meet twice a year to discuss issues. It is important that Mr McElduff does not attempt to politicise the arts. The arts are specifically excluded from all-Ireland bodies.

Mr Jim Wilson: Time is up.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Food Body

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to update the Assembly on the suggestion that a food body should be established in Northern Ireland; and to make a statement.
(AQO145/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: If it is in order, I wish to place on record that I have publicly condemned the actions in Lurgan last night. I want to put the record straight. It was a very small minority of fans, with whom the rest of the GAA supporters are disgusted.
The vision group recommended the establishment of a food body, as there was broad support for it in principle during consultation on the vision report. In March 2002, I established a working group to review the case for a food body, to advise on the possible structure, responsibilities and remit of such a body, and to make recommendations on funding, including the balance between industry and Government funding and the extent to which a body might subsume the activities of existing organisations. Janet Trewsdale, acting chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, chairs the working group, which includes representatives of the main stakeholders. The working group is close to completing its work, and I expect to receive the report shortly.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: The Minister said that there would be questions about the food body’s structure, responsibility and remit. Can she provide more information on the food body’s exact remit and how it might function?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I cannot confirm the remit of any food body until I have considered the working group report, which I expect to receive within a week. I notice that the clock has stopped for some reason. Is that an omen?

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: There will still only be an hour and a half to answer questions.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The vision group report identified food marketing and supply chain issues as the main work areas for a food body, but I cannot give any further confirmation until I have received the report.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister mentioned the priorities of the vision group’s proposals. How wide-ranging will the consultation with different bodies on those priorities be? Will it be contained in the action plan that is scheduled for November 2002?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Does the Member mean the consultation on the food body?

Mr Jim Shannon: Yes.

Ms Brid Rodgers: There will be extensive consultation with all stakeholders and interested parties on the proposals about the food body. Consultation on the vision document is complete. I shall give my views when I receive the report on the food body. I shall then consult the Committee and other interested parties.

Mr George Savage: Would it not be more relevant to farmers if the Minister established a fair price commission to ascertain exactly where profits in the agrifood industry are going? In the light of its findings, a commission could create a fair price tag for goods with farmers and producers being paid a fair price.

Ms Brid Rodgers: A fair price commission is a reserved matter and not one for the devolved institution, so that is not for me to consider. As the Member said, there are great difficulties, concerns and mistrust in the agrifood industry. Farmers feel that they are not getting a fair price for their produce.
That can be resolved through greater co-operation in the chain. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, of which Mr Savage is the Deputy Chairperson, and the Competition Commission, investigated the matter and found no evidence of price-fixing or unfair practice. I would be concerned if evidence were uncovered. However, competition matters are reserved.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Would the Minister see merit in an all-Ireland food body?

Ms Brid Rodgers: A working group has been set up to examine the viability of a food body and to consider how it should be financed and what its remit should be. It would be inappropriate of me to comment on the matter while the working group is still considering it. When I have seen the report, I will give my views on it.

Mr Jim Wilson: Question No. 6, in the name of Mrs Annie Courtney, has been withdrawn and will not require a written answer. Question No. 10, in the name of Mr Fee, and Question No. 20, in the name of Mr Eddie Mr Grady, have also been withdrawn but require written answers.

Agricultural Colleges

Mr Tom Hamilton: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she intends to prevent the absorption of the Province’s dedicated agricultural colleges into the further and higher education sector, as proposed in the O’Hare Report.
(AQO131/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The O’Hare Report’s recommendations are the result of a review by an independent panel of the existing arrangement for agrifoods, research and development and education. Among the panel’s wide-ranging recommendations is the transfer of the teaching function of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s colleges to the further education sector. I have not yet decided on my response to the report’s recommendations. I received the report at the end of April and immediately put it out for public consultation. The consultation period ended on 31 August, and I received more than 180 responses, which I am studying. However, in July, I told the Rural Stakeholders’ Forum that a strong case would have to be presented before I would consider integrating the Department’s colleges with the further education institutes.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that the absorption of the agriculture colleges into further and higher education colleges could jeopardise agriculture education in much of the Province, since further education colleges tend to decide on the viability of courses strictly according to their budgetary requirements?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of the importance of agriculture colleges to the industry, and their interaction with it, so a strong case would have to be presented to me before I would consider integrating them with further education institutes.

On-Site Testing System

Mr P J Bradley: 3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the rapid on-site testing system used by the agriculture research service of the United States Department of Agriculture when dealing with suspected disease outbreaks in the national herd.
(AQO126/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: My officials have been in contact with the research service of the US Department of Agriculture to discuss its work on the development of a rapid on-site testing system, which can be transported to the site of a suspected disease outbreak by truck or by helicopter. It combines the speed of the latest disease diagnosis techniques of molecular biology with advanced mobile communication technology. In the event of an outbreak, rapid diagnosis can be carried out on the farm, and the results are immediately transmitted back to the control centre. The system is particularly suited to the diagnosis of major outbreaks of exotic diseases where speedy action is essential. I expect that such advance and the methods available to deal with major outbreaks of disease will deliver benefits in the next few years, should we need them.

Mr P J Bradley: I thank the Minister for her research into the apparatus used in America. I learned that the time between the test and the result is 90 minutes. Here, the same result took three days. Will the Minister tell us why that system was not deployed here during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It would have not been appropriate to use this system last year because international authorities for the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease approved neither the system nor the technology on which it is based. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) foot-and-mouth disease reference laboratory at the Institute of Animal Health, Pirbright has tested the performance of the diagnostic element of the system. Its reports contain reservations about the system and its use as a portable facility, although it remains positive about the potential of this type of rapid diagnostic technique. One of the problems with portable systems is the real danger of cross-contamination during such an exercise.

Wet Weather Payments

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in achieving wet weather payments for farmers.
(AQO163/02)

Wet Summer Conditions

Mr Barry McElduff: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail any special measures and actions taken by her Department to assist farmers following the wet summer weather conditions; and to make a statement.
(AQO139/02)

Deteriorating Climatic Conditions

Mr Ken Robinson: 11. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the deteriorating climatic conditions in Ireland, what assessment she has made on the impact this has had on agricultural production and what actions she proposes to address this impact
(AQO132/02)

Impact of Bad Weather

Mr Michael Coyle: 19. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the impact the bad weather is having on production this year, if she will be preparing a dossier for submission to the European Union.
(AQO155/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall answer Questions 4, 7, 11 and 19 together. I am acutely aware of the difficulties experienced by farmers as a consequence of the very wet weather over much of the growing season. I have monitored the situation very carefully. Over the summer, my advisers were active, providing technical advice and assistance to producers. Furthermore, an extensive advisory programme is planned for the coming months, starting later this week with open days at the Agricultural Research Institute at Hillsborough.
As well as that practical assistance, I have worked hard to secure a relaxation of European Union grazing rules on set-aside land and achieved a satisfactory outcome last month, together with an increase in cattle subsidy advance payments. The possibility of wet weather payments remains open; however, to release the necessary funds, any such scheme must first secure European Union state aid approval and the agreement of the Executive. In both cases, concrete evidence will be required to support the argument for financial assistance, and such evidence cannot be gathered until the end of the growing season. My officials have made arrangements to meet the European Union Commission to explore the options in the light of the evidence, and I have written to the Executive to brief them on the situation.

Mr Edwin Poots: The growing season is coming to an end, the cereal harvest is almost finished, and most farmers say that their cereal crops have been significantly reduced. The potato harvest is about to commence with low expectations from potato farmers. Will the Minister assure the House that as soon as the crops have been harvested, her Department will seek financial assistance for the farming community? Many farmers have suffered greatly over the past few years as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and BSE, and the weather this year has been a terrible blow to the farming community.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr Poots, as I did in my first response, that my officials and I have been monitoring the situation. If there is a case to be made to the European Commission we will begin to build it as soon as the growing season ends. However, we shall not seek financial assistance from Europe. In the first place, we will seek state aid approval from Europe; if that is granted, I must find the resources in our own block budget and get the Executive’s approval. I have already spoken on this matter to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and to the Executive, and they are aware of the farmers’ plight.
There was very wet weather during the 1999 season in the Orkney Islands, yet by the time the case had been made, the EU state aid approved and resources allocated, it was the following June before payments were made to farmers. Farmers should not expect financial assistance before the end of the year. It will take some time for the money to become available.
In the meantime, through measures such as the winter management workshops, the Department is doing everything possible to help farmers cope. I recently visited a farm. I am, therefore, aware of the damage that has been done to the ground by poaching and of the loss and additional costs that farmers will incur if their feed bills increase.

Mr Barry McElduff: Does the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, understand the unique circumstances and difficulties faced by farmers in the Six Counties after the wettest growing season in years, while England enjoyed considerably better weather conditions? Does she understand the massive water shortages and high meal costs in the summer months and the lack of extra fodder available to farmers in other parts of Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Funding for wet weather payments is the responsibility of the EU Commission. In June 2002, I alerted Mrs Beckett to the situation in Northern Ireland, and I wrote to her in July to update her. If, therefore, we have a case, Mrs Beckett, as the UK Minister to the EU Commission, will make it for us.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the changes to the weather and seasonal patterns seem to be becoming the norm, rather than the exception? In the light of that, does she agree that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s planning and the pattern of grants on offer may have to change? Will she consider the impact of the changing conditions on the vulnerable rural and urban areas along the east Antrim coastline in the boroughs of Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus and Larne?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I cannot comment on climate change; it is somewhat beyond my remit. The impact of the changing conditions is, however, a growing problem, but, given that the grants and subsidies come from Europe, it is not in my competence to change the payment system.

Mr Ken Robinson: Will the Minister comment on east Antrim?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Some issues, such as flooding, are in my remit through the Department’s Rivers Agency. However, many other issues fall in the remits of the Department of the Environment and the Water Service. A mechanism has been initiated whereby, with the Department of the Environment, the Rivers Agency and other relevant agencies, the Department provides a rapid response team that ensures that, if people have a problem with flooding, they can contact the correct agency and will not be passed from pillar to post. The Department of the Environment is responsible for planning, building and developing flood plains.

Mr Michael Coyle: I recognise that the Minister and her Department have done much in the past to help the agriculture industry cope with the BSE and foot-and-mouth disease crises. The bad weather is compounding the difficulties faced by the farmers who are recovering from those problems. Does the Minister agree that the farming community requires much more help? What questions is the Commission likely to ask regarding the state aid application?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Commission will wish to verify that the level of loss incurred exceeds 30% in the lowland areas and 20% in the less-favoured areas, which are the minimum thresholds specified in the state aid guidelines. The Commission will also want to be satisfied that any proposed aid is accurately targeted at those losses and that there is no risk of overcompensation or market distortion.

Rev Robert Coulter: The Minister has acknowledged the damage caused by the prolonged period of wet weather, particularly to dairy farmers’ land. Will she agree to the introduction of a reseeding scheme to improve the quality of grazing land for next year?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The allocation of any grant, including a reseeding grant, depends on EU state aid approval. I have seen the fields, and I am aware of the problem, but we must go through that mechanism.

Tagging Scheme

Mr Mick Murphy: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail any discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in Britain or the Republic of Ireland about the possible introduction of a Northern Ireland tagging scheme.
(AQO175/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The European Union determines the legislative requirements for tagging cattle and sheep. The cattle-tagging provisions have been in place for many years, and the tags must include letters that identify the member state of origin. European Union proposals on sheep identification are to be brought forward shortly. Pigs are not required to be tagged, although they must have an identifying mark or tattoo before leaving their premises of birth.
My officials have raised with the European Commission the possibility of having letters that identify the region of origin included in the cattle-tagging arrangements. Hitherto, the Commission has not accepted that. I will continue to seek that provision for cattle, and for sheep if necessary, and to seek support from ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic of Ireland as appropriate.

Mr Mick Murphy: Why has the Minister not made a stronger case for tagging beef from Northern Ireland? That case should be pushed more strongly than it has been. Beef from Northern Ireland is tagged as British, and it should be tagged as having come from Northern Ireland. That would be of great benefit to the farming community. Why is the Minister not pushing for that in Europe?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am a little confused, because beef is not tagged — cattle are. Is the Member referring to cattle tagging?

Mr Mick Murphy: Yes.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I shall, with the support of my ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic, seek to secure the European Commission’s agreement to have letters that identify the region of origin included in the ear tag. Indeed, I have already raised that. However, the introduction of a single ear tag for Northern Ireland is unlikely, as EU rules require the inclusion of letters in a tag to identify the member state of origin, which in our case is the UK. That is the rule in the European Commission; it allows only the member state to identify cattle. Marketing issues can be dealt with through the method of beef labelling that is eventually chosen, though we must abide by certain rules in that respect also. That is the current position. I have raised the issue, but I am reluctant to say that I have the power to change the European Commission’s rules as easily as all that.

Mr Jim Wilson: Question 7 was grouped, and we should move to Question 8. However, Mr Gibson is not in his place.

Cattle Imported from the Republic of Ireland

Mr Billy Armstrong: 9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement about the regulations that allow the import of weaning cattle from the Republic of Ireland, cattle subsequently labelled as "Quality British Beef", and the timescales involved in this practice.
(AQO168/02)

Date-Based Export Scheme

Mr Joe Byrne: 12. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the European Commission’s decision to relax the date-based export scheme rules for Northern Ireland.
(AQO156/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Beef cattle that are born in the Republic of Ireland cannot be labelled as "Quality British Beef". Under EC beef-labelling rules, only beef derived from animals that are born, reared and slaughtered in the UK may be labelled as British.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister have any plans to introduce a marketing label device, which will admit weaned cattle imported from the Irish Republic? It was tradition, prior to the establishment of this Assembly, for farmers to buy store cattle from the Irish Republic for fattening. Those cattle came up as weanlings at around six months of age. Would it be possible for such cattle to be labelled for marketing purposes as British beef?

Ms Brid Rodgers: That is a marketing and a commercial issue, and not one for the Minister to address. I am aware of the problem, and I discussed it with the industry. Beef labelling must state where the animal was sourced, slaughtered, and so on. It is a commercial issue as to whether such beef is regarded as British or Irish beef.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Following the French relaxation of the ban on beef from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs to see if we can get orders in France?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member asked if I would be making representations to whom?

Mrs Eileen Bell: Will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs or the relevant Department?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I hope that the French market will now be available. We expect, on foot of the decision taken by the French food standards agency, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), that the French Government will move very quickly to remove the ban. The indications are that that will be the case. I expect that we will then be in a position to export beef to France under the new date-based export scheme (DBES) rules. I will do all in my power as Minister to encourage support for Northern Irish beef in the French market — within the rules of competition, of course. My officials have been in discussion with some of the meat factories, which are anxious to begin exporting, especially to France, as there is a market for our beef there. That is good news for the farmers.

Mr Joe Byrne: Bearing in mind the Minister’s answer to question 9, and noting my own question 12, what percentage of cattle, slaughtered for human consumption, is eligible for the date-based export system, and what steps are the Department taking to improve the percentage of eligible animals?
Finally, does the Minister expect to see an increase in beef and sheep-meat prices to farmers, given that export processors should now enjoy a wider range of markets?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will take the last part of the Member’s question first — yes, I hope to see an increase in prices for the farmers because of wider markets.
In relation to the number of cattle eligible for the date-based export scheme, about 50% or 60% of cattle in a typical month are export eligible under the scheme. Many more cattle would be eligible if notification of animal births and movements were made on time by herd keepers. I am committed to ensuring that the EU rules of cattle identification and traceability are fully implemented. To that effect, I am phasing in additional control measures, including individual animal and herd restrictions for cattle identification and movement irregularities, as required by EU Regulations. Better compliance with animal identification and movement rules should, in turn, increase the date-based export scheme eligibility in the future.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr John Kelly, Mr Hilditch, and Mr Conor Murphy are not in their places, so we will move to question 16.

Delays — Vision Report Action Plan

Mr Gardiner Kane: 16. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the series of delays which have occurred in the delivery of the vision report action plan.
(AQO166/02)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I note that none of those Members are from Armagh, so there is no excuse for their being absent today.
I consulted widely on the vision group report, after its publication in October 2001. In March 2002, I announced 11 measures, addressing 30 of the vision group’s recommendations, which could be implemented without additional resources. My original intention was to release the full vision group action plan at the end of June 2002. However, I decided to delay its publication until November 2002, so that account could be taken of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I emphasise that the delay in announcing the vision group action plan will not cause any delay in the implementation of the recommendations. In addition to allowing me to make adjustments in response to the mid-term review, the delay will enable me to bring all my proposals together in one announcement, which, among other things, will deal with my response to the food body working group.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, your time is up.

Assembly Commission

Mr Jim Wilson: Mrs Eileen Bell will respond on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Mr Paisley Jnr is not in his place, so we will move to question 2.

Information Leaflet

Ms Jane Morrice: 2. asked the Assembly Commission if it has any plans to publish a public information leaflet on the workings of the Assembly.
(AQO128/02)

Mrs Eileen Bell: The Assembly Commission has agreed a wide-ranging information strategy that addresses not only the information needs of the Assembly but the needs of the public for information about the Assembly and its business. The strategy is in the public domain by way of the Assembly web site. The strategy recognises the need to produce and present information in ways that best meet the needs of different groups, such as schools, special interest groups, academics, Departments and the public in general.
In order to implement the information strategy, the Executive Information Office has recently recruited two education officers to develop an information and education programme about the Assembly and its work. As part of that programme, a series of public information leaflets dealing with various aspects of the Assembly’s work will be produced. Proposals for the design and content of the first of those leaflets will be put to the Assembly Commission for approval in the next few weeks.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am pleased to hear that, finally, something is being done. I hold in my hand the Scottish Parliament’s information leaflets, which have been available to the public for many years. They contain everything from information on the devolved Parliament and guidance for witnesses giving evidence to Committees, to how to approach MSPs. It is an excellent educational information brochure. Given the value of the work being done by our colleagues across the water, I am disappointed that the Assembly Commission did not make it a priority to get information to the public sooner.
Why has it taken so long to produce an information strategy? Will leaflets of the same type and quality as the Scottish Parliament’s be available at least before the end of the year? Will the Assembly Commission consider setting aside a budget for educational and/or information tools for younger primary schoolchildren who, after a tour of the Building, leave totally empty-handed? That is not the case in some local councils, where children who visit leave with pencils or rubbers. Will the Commission agree to set aside a budget for such a valuable educational tool for everyone, and especially for young people?

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a personal level, I agree with everything that the Member has said. The Assembly Commission has been considering all aspects of information strategies for young people and the public in general. Education officers will consider some of the aspects relating to young people that you mentioned. We have decided to implement the simple strategy of giving children a pencil. Plans are in the melting pot at present, but we will inform the Assembly of our work as it progresses.
I agree that the Scottish pack is a good idea. I have given the Assembly Commission samples of it, because it hopes to produce a similar pack. Members’ points will be noted in Hansard and taken on board as part of the discussion exercise.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will that happen before Christmas?

Mrs Eileen Bell: The Commission has discussed the matter, but I cannot give the Member a timetable.

Press Access

Prof Monica McWilliams: 3. asked the Assembly Commission whether it has any plans to review press access arrangements to Parliament Buildings.
(AQO127/02)

Mrs Eileen Bell: Before devolution, a press liaison group was established to discuss matters of mutual interest, including media access and facilities in Parliament Buildings. A press lobby system to facilitate access was proposed, but the press did not find that proposal appropriate.
Earlier this year, after a meeting between media representatives and the Assembly Commission, it was agreed that the Commission would consider proposals to enhance press access in the Buildings. It was agreed that media representatives would reconsider the proposal to establish a press lobby and then offer its views to the Commission. To date, that has not happened.
A key consideration of the Commission is the facilitation of Assembly business and the provision of a safe working environment for Members, staff and the visiting public. The Commission values the role of the press in promoting a better understanding of the Assembly and its Committees, and would welcome proposals for improving press access.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I was disappointed at the press fallout after the Queen’s visit and other occasions. The Assembly has managed to make an enemy rather than a friend of the press. Media facilities and access do not appear to be a problem in other devolved institutions. I cannot understand why the liaison committee never met; perhaps it could be re-established urgently. I ask the Commission to take the issue seriously, so that the apparent lack of communication as regards press access during the Queen’s visit does not arise again. The same approach should apply to press access during visits by other dignitaries, and to the provision of information that we wish the press to report. The Assembly seems to have fallen foul in that regard, and the press seem to end up reporting negatively on it.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I agree; however, the Commission and the press have met to discuss proposals many times. We are considering their proposals for access and better information, and I hope that they are considering ours. The press conference arena in the basement of the Building is rarely used. The Head of Security, the Speaker, and other Members who deal with the press met representatives, and the Commission also met the Chairpersons’ Liaison Group. I hope that proposals will result from those meetings.
I take on board the Member’s comments; however, the Commission has already tried the approach that she suggested. I hope that the Assembly will be able to establish a better relationship and better communication with the press. The Commission shares the Members hope that the problems that arose in the past do not happen again.

Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations

draft fixed term employees (prevention of less favourable treatment) regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

part-time workers (prevention of less favourable treatment) (amendment) regulations (northern Ireland) 2002

Debate resumed on motion:
That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved. — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved. — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]

Mr Jim Wilson: I remind Members that the Minister has grouped the motions on the draft Fixed Term Employees Regulations and the Part-Time Workers Regulations for debate. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Minister to do the winding-up speech and put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move the second motion before putting the question without further debate. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I shall continue where I left off.
I am aware that fixed-term contracts are used in sectors ranging from higher education to the hospitality industry. In some instances, sectors or organisations may wish to tailor the mechanism limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to suit their needs better. Therefore the Regulations provide for employers and employees to increase or decrease the four-year limit or to agree a different way in order to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by collective or workforce agreements. Those agreements could, for example, specify allowable reasons for renewing fixed-term contracts beyond the statutory limit.
It is important that the law does not permit fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. Therefore these Regulations also amend provisions in certain parts of some Orders, which, unless amended, would allow some or all fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. For example, the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 permits fixed-term employees to waive their right to redundancy payments. The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will remove that redundancy waiver.
The modest costs associated with these Regulations are more than offset by the advantages that they bring in fairness and the ending of the potential for discrimination. The regulatory impact assessment commissioned by my Department estimated costs to the private sector of about £1 million to £4 million. The Regulations will create an even playing field for employers of fixed-term contract employees. However, it is right that fixed-term employees should be treated no less favourably than permanent employees.
I now turn to the two amendments to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These Regulations make it unlawful for employers to treat part-timers less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions of employment unless different treatment can be justified objectively.
Under the present Part-Time Workers Regulations, part-time workers must compare themselves to full-timers employed under a similar contract. The amendment will allow part-time workers to compare themselves with full-time staff on both permanent and fixed-term contracts. That will ensure that part-time workers on fixed-term contracts are not treated less favourably than permanent workers.
The second amendment also aims at bringing the Part-Time Workers Regulations into line with the Fixed Term Employees Regulations. At present, if an industrial tribunal upholds a complaint from a part-time worker about equal access to an occupational pension scheme, the remedy awarded may not exceed a limit of two years’ worth of employer contributions. That reflects the House of Lords ruling in February 2001 in the case of Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others. The amendment Regulations remove that restriction.
Compliance costs are estimated to be low. Those employers who treat their part-time workers equally to their full-time staff will experience no direct costs. The days where most of the labour force worked nine to five in a job for life are past. It is widely recognised that a more flexible approach is not only good for employees, but it can also enhance competitiveness. In this context, it is particularly important to protect the rights of the growing numbers on fixed-term and part-time contracts. Fixed-term and part-time work allows people to participate in the labour market who, perhaps due to family or other commitments, may not wish to accept permanent or full-time employment.
For their part, employers should see the benefits of greater loyalty and commitment among their fixed-term and part-time staff. Overall, the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 contribute to improving employment rights in the workforce, and I commend both sets of Regulations to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the late delivery to the Committee of the Statutory Rule relating to part-time workers. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support both sets of Regulations.
With reference to the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, the Committee considered the pre-draft Statutory Rule at its meeting on 9 May 2002 and had no objections to the policy implications of the proposed legislation at that stage. The Committee noted that the equality impact assessment on the proposed Regulations indicated that there would be no adverse impact on any of the section 75 groups. The Minister referred to the regulatory impact assessment, and the Committee noted that it estimated a net cost to employers ranging from £1·5 million to £7·6 million, with about half of that falling on the public sector. It was expected that very little cost would fall on small businesses.
The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its most recent meeting on Thursday 19 September and supported its key objectives, especially the prevention of discrimination against fixed-term employees.
On behalf of the Committee, I urge support for the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002). These Regulations amend the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (SR 219/2000) and are due to come into force on 1 October. As with the previous Statutory Rule, the original date for implementation was 1 July 2002, but the Department of Trade and Industry in London requested that further time be given to the UK to implement the EU Directive on fixed-term work.
The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its meeting on 19 September 2002 and supported the key objectives outlined by the Minister. The first is to maintain consistency with the EU Directive on fixed-term work, and the second is to comply with the judgment made by the House of Lords in the Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Given that the amendments have been taken as part of an European Directive, and the fact that many women have to take part-time or fixed-term work due to family commitments, I am glad to see that the prevention of less favourable treatment has been taken on board by the Minister. Could we not do more, above and beyond what the EU suggests, to make working conditions for part-time and fixed-term workers even more favourable to the needs of working parents?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I also welcome the introduction of the Statutory Rules. As Michelle Gildernew said, they originated from European Directives. The people concerned were once commonly known as atypical workers, but the days when we had the typical worker from nine to five on a permanent contract are long gone. Many employees now have atypical working patterns, so the more inclusive our legislation, the better, especially with regard to the prevention of less favourable treatment.
I remember when part-time workers began to secure some rights along the same lines as full-time workers. The first thing that employers did was make their part-time workers redundant, since, they said, they could not implement the Regulation without considerable cost to themselves. Clearly, equality issues were involved. I know of some dispute involving Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster. In particular, the University of Ulster’s fixed-term employees think that they will lose their jobs before the legislation comes into force.
When the legislation comes into force, what will happen to the employer of a person who has been working for four years on a fixed-term contract — I believe that that is the term in the legislation — if he or she decides to replace them? What are the employee’s rights if he or she wishes to take that employer to court or to a tribunal because of unfair dismissal? Those of us who are familiar with labour relations know that many part-time workers did not benefit from previous legislation; they simply lost their jobs as a consequence.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Today’s workforce is an increasingly diverse entity. I firmly believe that such enhanced flexibility brings considerable benefits to employers and workers alike. It is therefore important that those who wish to work on fixed-term or part-time contracts are not discouraged from doing so by the threat of less favourable treatment. I welcome the remarks of the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning and his acceptance of reassurances.
We are dealing with specific issues in the legislation, but Members are probably aware that an employment status review is under way. I hope that issues outside the legislation will be taken up through that. That probably does not answer the specific question regarding Queen’s University, but I do not think I could answer that now, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so here. However, I shall most certainly do so in writing.
The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will protect the rights of the increasing number of individuals on fixed-term, or part-time, contracts who might otherwise suffer detrimental work habits compared with their permanent or full-time colleagues. Such workers have an important role to play in helping to meet organisations’ needs for more flexible labour solutions which contribute to the creation of high-performance workplaces.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.
Resolved:
That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved.

Planning (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Rev William McCrea: I beg to move
That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01).
The Committee for the Environment formally began its scrutiny of the Planning (Amendment) Bill on 25 June 2002. Members will know that it is the Committee’s practice to seek the views of all key stakeholders, as well as those of groups most likely to be affected by any legislation.
This is an important piece of legislation. Consequently, the Committee has canvassed the views of all 26 councils and 17 other bodies, such as the Construction Employers Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Woodland Trust. Seventeen responses have been received to date. As expected, some have raised interesting and valid concerns, and these were passed to the Department for comment. Over the past weeks, the Committee has received presentations from departmental officials responding to those points, and that process is ongoing.
During the Second Stage of the Bill, some Members spoke of the need for third-party appeals. The Committee has already obtained a commitment from the Minister that his Department will commence a full public consultation on the way forward for third-party appeals by Christmas of this year. The Committee is concerned about the Planning (Amendment) Bill in relation to third-party appeals.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Although full details will be provided in the Committee’s report on the Bill, Members will be pleased to learn that the Committee has persuaded the Minister to take other important issues forward. Two of those require the Secretary of State’s approval; namely, increasing the maximum fine from £20,000 to £30,000, and introducing a new offence of commencing development before planning permission is given. Those are significant steps forward and highlight the Committee’s hard work on the Bill.
There are more issues for the Committee to explore that will require due and proper deliberation. Consequently, the Committee has considered it necessary to ask the Assembly for an extension. As always, it is the Committee’s hope that its work will be completed by an earlier date.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01).

Local Air Quality Management Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Rev William McCrea: I beg to move
That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill. (NIA Bill 13/01).
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will explain to the House why the extension is being sought. The Committee for the Environment began its formal scrutiny of the Bill on 18 June 2002. Members who have read the Bill will appreciate that it is complex, of a technical nature and requires close scrutiny.
The Committee heard presentations from and held discussions with departmental officials. This included a structured clause-by-clause presentation of the Bill on 20 June 2002. The Committee has also canvassed the views of all district councils together with 12 other interested bodies, such as the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, and the Royal Town Planning Institute. To date, seven responses have been received and, as expected, they have raised some pertinent and legitimate concerns which have been submitted to the Department for its comment and consideration.
It was also agreed that the Department would consult with key stakeholders to ascertain their views on the terms of the Bill. That consultation has taken longer than expected, and the Department has indicated that it will shortly be in a position to come back before the Committee on this Bill. It should prove to be a valuable exercise for all concerned, and it will require due and proper deliberation by the Committee. Consequently, the Committee has considered it appropriate to ask the Assembly to grant this extension of time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill. (NIA Bill 13/01).

Energy Inquiry Report

Mr Pat Doherty: I beg to move
That this Assembly take note of the response from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Committee’s Report on Energy (03/01R).
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his full and comprehensive response to the Committee. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Armagh team on its fine victory yesterday; perhaps the Chamber is so empty because Members are all down celebrating in the county.
The Committee wishes to see energy remain at the top of the political agenda, so it decided to stimulate a further debate on the energy report and the issues contained in it rather than deal with them by correspondence alone. We hoped that that would afford other Members the opportunity to contribute to this area of public policy. The Committee is looking forward to having a closer look at some of the relevant issues when considering the energy Bill later in the session.
As there are 45 recommendations, I do not have enough time to deal with each one and the Minister’s response to them. I will concentrate on two issues which Committee members feel strongly about. I was pleased that many of the Committee’s most important recommendations were accepted by the Department: recommendation 3 on consumer protection; recommendation 4 on cross-subsidies; recommendation 14 on Coolkeeragh; and recommendation 40 on postalisation of costs. However, I remain disappointed that Departments were not prepared to think outside the box in some cases. Some responses were negative and lacked imagination, and I will deal with them later.
The Committee made three recommendations regarding the eradication of fuel poverty. It has been said in previous debates, but it is worth repeating, that it is a scandal that 170,000 homes in the North are considered to be fuel poor. The Executive must make every effort to deal with the problem. The Committee recommended that the Government match, pound for pound, the money raised through the energy efficiency levy — £600,000 per year. If such funds cannot be directly obtained from the Treasury, they should be found from the Executive funds. That would reduce the time taken to eradicate fuel poverty from 10 to five years.
Some £600,000 is a small price to pay. The knock-on benefits to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget, for example, would be enormous, as it would reduce the cases of illnesses related to fuel poverty such as flu and chest infections and other chest-related illnesses by a huge amount. It would be money well spent.
The Committee was pleased to note that the Minister for Social Development is committed to producing a fuel poverty strategy, and we look forward to examining his proposals. The Committee was also pleased to note that the regulator is introducing plans that will make the energy efficiency levy process more accountable and transparent so that the public can see exactly how and where the funds are being spent.
On the question of renewable energy, the Committee is encouraged with the progress on developing the potential offshore wind farm off the north coast. I agree with the Minister that that development will be crucial if renewable energy targets are to be met. I hope that the Minister will agree that the misinformation being used against the development is extremely unhelpful and that it only serves to breed fear and confusion. The Committee is disappointed that the Minister could not agree with our target of having 15% of electricity from a range of renewable sources by 2010 but has instead opted for 10%. I accept that the majority of respondents to his consultation exercise agreed that 10% was appropriate, but the Committee believes that a target of 15% will encourage greater imagination in research and development of the necessary technologies. That target is challenging, but it is achievable if we put our minds to it. The Committee made various recommendations that sought to encourage greater demand for green electricity. We are deeply disappointed that the Departments responsible for dealing with those recommendations could not be more positive in their responses.
In recommendation 27, for example, the Committee stated that local area development plans should include provision for the location and development of renewable energy sources. The response that we received may have been technically correct, but it did not attempt to address the real issues, which are about helping to plan ahead for the development and use of renewable energy sources.
Recommendation 28 called for the planning and building control bodies to be proactive in the encouragement of low-energy buildings and renewable energy. The response saying that current strategies and legislation do not cover this point is simply not good enough. If the Executive want to take their obligations under the Kyoto protocol seriously, they need to demonstrate joined-up thinking on the encouragement, stimulation and development of renewable energy sources and technologies. It is unacceptable that Departments appear to be unsupportive of one another on the matter.
The Committee is pleased that the Minister and his Department are trying to develop the renewable energy industry in response to recommendations 34, 35, 36 and 37.
The Committee intends to keep plugging away at the issues raised in the energy inquiry report. I am glad that the report will help to stimulate public debate, and I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to look afresh at points raised today.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the Minister’s response to the Committee. The energy inquiry was an in-depth investigation that lasted longer than the Committee anticipated. The Committee will soon consider the draft energy Bill, which is very detailed. I assure the Minister that the Committee will approach the task with the same interest that it took in the original investigation.
The major issue is the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Assembly must consider long-term contracts. The Committee recently met Jamie Delargy and Sir George Quigley to discuss bonds financing as a possible means of buying out the contracts. Only two weeks ago, I met senior officials from Northern Ireland Electricity to discuss their proposals. The Committee has not decided how it will proceed with the matter. It will examine those, and other, proposals. It must focus on its aim, which is to lower the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the fact that the natural gas pipeline will go ahead, not only because it will benefit the north-west, but because of its benefit to the South/North pipeline. I sincerely hope that natural gas will benefit domestic consumers as much as businesses and that it will create a level playing field for all consumers in Northern Ireland.
I am still dismayed that people inside and outside the Assembly are trying to impede the project’s development. One of the first all-party delegations that met in the Assembly dealt with the provision of natural gas to the north-west. Every party was represented before we even had devolution. Natural gas has widespread support across the political boundaries. I am delighted that the projected commissioning date of autumn 2004 has been agreed for Coolkeeragh power station, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the pipeline to the north-west.
We must not put all our eggs in the one basket. We must remember that the new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station at Ballylumford will be commissioned soon. I, and local representatives, will visit that power station in a week or so.
Combined cycle gas turbine will also power Coolkeeragh, so we must be careful not to put all our eggs in one basket. The future energy uses at Kilroot must be different from natural gas. If Kilroot goes ahead with phase two of the power station, it could use gas, but there must be some diversification.
The Committee took considerable interest in the development of renewable energy, and we welcome the Department’s commitment to it. However, I agree with the Chairperson that the larger target of 15% by 2010 is preferable.
It was remiss of me to leave out postalisation when talking about the natural gas pipeline. It is important that all consumers pay the same price for natural gas, regardless of where they live in Northern Ireland. The Committee has a major challenge ahead in dealing with the energy Bill, but we will approach it with the same determination with which we approached the original report.

Mr Billy Armstrong: As a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I am well aware of the challenges facing consumers and businesses with regard to the higher cost and lower availability of energy resources in Northern Ireland. I commend the energy inquiry report to the Minister; its numerous recommendations can provide a cheaper, greener service for energy consumers, and they suggest means for transforming waste into energy.
When the industry was privatised in 1992, long-term contracts were introduced that will continue until 2012; these have benefited only stakeholders at the expense of consumers. The report recognises the failings in the energy sector and seeks to improve consumers’ lot — the ordinary men and women for whom energy is a basic need.
The report recognises the need to make consumer protection a priority when determining arrangements in the energy sector. That is why we suggest that the General Consumer Council be given stronger powers to represent consumers’ rights to cheaper, diverse sources of energy.
Some 170,000 householders in Northern Ireland are classed fuel poor. I welcome initiatives, such as the warm homes scheme, which seek to redress people’s difficulties in affording energy. The report’s recommendation to increase the energy efficiency levy to £5 per customer is one way of eradicating fuel poverty, and the Minister should consider that more closely.
Increasing the efficient use of energy is one way of reducing cost to the consumer. Efficient appliances are vital, as they use energy sources with more care. However, the report also suggests ways in which the price per unit of electricity and other costs can be reduced. It is unacceptable that a 306% rise in output per generation worker has translated into only a 15% productivity gain to consumers. It is unacceptable that consumers are expected to fund long-term contracts while shareholders make large profits at their expense.
The importance of the environment in any future energy strategy is recognised in the report. I suggest that alternative sources of energy should receive assistance through Government funding. The report mentions the recently established biogas scheme in Fivemiletown. I am in favour of such schemes that convert waste products, particularly farm waste, into useful sources of energy. There is great potential for locating biogas digesters throughout Northern Ireland to reduce waste storage difficulties and to provide power for local schools and communities. The Minister will recall that I have written to him on this, and I hope that he will fully consider it.
Northern Ireland depends on traditional energy sources. Much more needs to be done to promote the use of renewable energy. Some 60% of our electricity is produced from gas, as opposed to 38% in the UK as a whole. With volatile worldwide markets for oil and, perhaps soon, gas, we must act immediately to redress our energy deficit. We are aware of the huge potential to generate electricity through harnessing wind power. However, that must be sensibly managed to preserve the natural beauty of our landscape.
Especially in the face of international obligations, the Northern Ireland energy sector must undergo significant changes in the next few years in order to comply with obligations on renewable energy. In the Republic of Ireland, one company supplies green electricity generated by wind at a lower price than electricity generated by fossil fuels. I support an eco-energy tariff that does not impose additional charges on customers who opt for green energy.
It is vital that all parties concerned are encouraged to adopt environmentally friendly measures to generate energy. I hope that the Minister will further consider funding biomass schemes, such as the one at Brook Hall Estate in Londonderry. Willow coppice is a feedstock for producing electricity from biomass. The benefits of introducing such a scheme on a more widespread basis include an aid to rural development in addition to further diversifying the energy mix. There is also the further side benefit of reducing waste because biomass acts as a bio-filter.
I hope that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will seriously consider the importance of increasing the range of energy sources used to generate power. The report recommends that planning and building control bodies should also show greater awareness by encouraging low-energy buildings to reduce energy consumption.
In planning for the future fuel-energy market, we must give particular consideration to fuel poverty in rural areas. There are no plans at present for the alternative energy source of gas to be extended outside Belfast and the north-west and south-east of the Province, so I hope that the Minister will consider the importance of promoting and funding alternative energy sources, such as anaerobic digesters, in rural areas. The Minister should also endorse postalisation so that more dispersed rural communities can also benefit from renewable energy sources.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Discussions on energy are always timely — we could probably discuss energy once a month. As I said in a debate a few months ago, the future of energy is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a lifeblood of our society not only socially, but economically. We shall have to keep returning to the matter.
Although I disagree with one or two points, I broadly welcome the Minister’s response. It is only appropriate that I should pay tribute to the sterling work of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The Chairperson, Pat Doherty, the Deputy Chairperson, Sean Neeson, and my Colleagues on that Committee should be thanked for the massive amount of work that was put into the original inquiry.
Several issues must be addressed, including financing debt at a lower cost. We must buy out the stranded costs and do what we can to reduce the excessive charges that were tied up in the original scandalous contracts. The legislation must contain, or new legislation must be enacted to provide for, low-cost borrowing mechanisms in the energy industry that will allow for the servicing of debt and for the burden of debt to be reduced. That in itself would create small but significant savings for customers.
I am told that if lending institutions were allowed to use customers’ credit ratings, they might rate customers as more creditworthy than do NIE and would charge lower rates of interest, which would benefit the customers. There seems to be no great desire to include a low-cost financing option in the forthcoming energy Bill, but one must be included. If that option is not included in the original Bill, it must be included at Consideration Stage.
My Committee Colleagues have already touched on the scandal of fuel poverty. The Committee Chairman, Pat Doherty, cited the 170,000 homes — 28% of our people — that experience fuel poverty. I welcome the Minister’s support for the increase in the energy levy to an average of £5 per customer. The extra money that that will generate will be of great value to the homes affected by that scourge and will go some way towards eradicating it.
However, I also agree with recommendation 10. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Social Development must together develop an aggressive and effective task force on fuel poverty. It is not enough to take action such as raising levies in a passive or semi-active way; this problem must be dealt with aggressively and forcibly. The task force and the Executive must make the rapid eradication of fuel poverty a priority underpinned by legislation.
Like Mr Doherty, I believe that if the Exchequer cannot provide the necessary resources to eliminate fuel poverty, it behoves the Executive to find them as quickly as possible. The longer that that scandal pertains, the longer the Assembly will be ridiculed for not effectively getting to grips with government and the issues that affect people’s lives.
Recommendation 38 proposes the consideration of the establishment of a renewable energy agency. If such an agency is established, it will help us to focus on and adopt a much more serious approach to renewables, especially in the light of the Executive’s commitment to ensuring that 10% of energy will come from renewable sources. Like other Members, I am not satisfied with 10% — it should be 15%. A much greater commitment to developing renewable energy is needed. In many respects, we pay little more than lip service to it. It sounds nice, and it seems green, reasonable and user-friendly. However, as I told the House before the summer recess, an all-embracing energy agency is needed. I have let the matter rest until other issues have been debated, but if we do not return to it, we will never be in control of our energy resources. We can talk all we like, but there is no evidence that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is offering farmers effective incentives to produce renewable energy products. Until we have joined-up government that involves the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Social Development, and which pulls in all aspects of energy production, consumption and usage, we will not have the necessary grip on energy issues. The renewable energy debate must be renewed and engaged in with much more vigour than has been the case.
The Department of Agriculture should be involved. There are problems in the agriculture industry and, if a few people knew that they could diversify into energy products if the market were stable, it would perhaps be a welcome respite. However, I see no great incentive to do that.
I welcome the question of creating an all-island energy market, which was raised in recommendation 42 and in other recommendations in the report. North and South, we are an island community of only five million to six million people. That is not a large number in relation to a stable energy supply from multiple sources, and it is not enough in respect of an all-island energy economy. Greater co-operation with the UK must be obtained, particularly with Scotland. The Moyle interconnector is an excellent example of that. It has been fully loaded and used, and has gone some way towards creating an opening in the market. An open energy market is not possible without the supply. Douglas McIldoon said:
"The Moyle Interconnector, with a capacity of 500MW, has been developed as a strategic infrastructure project to link the previously isolated NI electricity system to the systems of Great Britain (GB) and the European mainland. The benefits of access to these larger systems for the NI electricity consumer include downward pressure on electricity prices from increased competition in generation along with enhanced security and diversity of supply."
Without adequate interconnecting capacity there can be no market. Our current problem, however, is that because the interconnector is fully used and fully loaded, there is no spare capacity. Expensive as it may be, we may very well need a second interconnector to double the capacity between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We must have a freer, more competitive and relatively open market as quickly as possible. If that is not done, if there are closed shops and restricted supplies, opportunities and choice, we can talk all we like, but that will not bring about change.
I could make other points, but I shall not. Other Members referred to the scandalously high price of the privatisation of the power stations. One primary focus should be to concentrate on the liberalisation of the market to promote as much competition as possible, so that the price of electricity comes down and the economics begin to make sense. They do not make sense now.

Mr Jim Wells: Once again, sadly, the debate on energy has not proved to be the hottest ticket in town. I am delighted that Mr Davis has appeared. At one stage, it looked as if Dr Birnie would be the only non-member of the Committee to take part in the debate, with the exception of the Minister. It is either a tremendous vote of confidence or a sign of apathy with regard to the work of the Committee. Members perhaps feel that the Committee has done such a good job and that the report is so watertight that it is not necessary to scrutinise its work, that it is a five-star Committee and there is nothing to worry about. Either that, or the level of interest in the crucial subject of energy is not what it should be. I am not sure of the reason, but on the three occasions on which this topic has arisen it has attracted very few Members. That said, however, it reveals a slight deficiency in the Standing Orders of the Assembly. There is no provision for a statement to be made by a Committee Chairperson. That provision existed in previous Assemblies and is a neat way of dealing with responses from Government Departments to Committee reports.
Of course, we are required to use the more unwieldy mechanism of a motion, which is often heard late in the afternoon, rather than during the morning’s business. Having said that, the Minister has made a steady but positive response to the Committee’s report.
If I were asked to describe the Minister in cricketing terms, I would say that he is more of a Geoffrey Boycott than an Ian Botham. Geoffrey Boycott tended to bat steadily and solidly, deflecting the bouncers and chalking up quite a few maiden overs, as opposed to Ian Botham, who nailed his colours to the mast and struck out with the bat. In reading the Minister’s report, I realised that he has a deft way of saying no. He reminds me of a young lady whom I asked out many times. Rather than say "No, I think that you are the ugliest person in the school", she offered good excuses that did not upset me, such as "I am doing my hair", "I have to look after my maiden aunt", or "I have to go shopping". The Minister does the same thing. Nowhere does he say that the Committee’s report is a load of nonsense or that it is extreme. He always has a "no, but" reply to the recommendations, which, I suppose, is how Ministers attain the tacit support of Committees on many issues.
The Minister could have been bold and responded to the recommendation on nuclear power as follows: "It is not a transferred matter. It is for officials at Westminster, but my view is: nuclear power in Northern Ireland — over my dead body". He could have nailed his colours to the mast, made a name for himself, and gained much support from the people of Northern Ireland, who are extremely worried about the health implications of Sellafield and nuclear power production. But, no, the Minister batted steady, sidestepping the issue by saying that it was not a matter for his Department — a neat answer but not, perhaps, the bravest.
The report recommends a radical rethink of the proportion of energy that will be produced by renewable fuel. Again, the Minister played with a straight bat, stuck to previous policy and stated that the proportion should be 10% — no more, no less. He could have said that although he would welcome an increase to 20% or 25% he must comply with the constraints, but, again, he did not comment.
I do not want to be negative, because the Department responded positively to several issues raised by the Committee. The Committee, the Assembly and the Minister are agreed on fuel poverty, an issue that unites the community. It is one of the few situations in which everybody would gain. If there were an adequate programme to tackle fuel poverty, we would lower carbon dioxide emissions, because less heat would be lost up the chimney and less fossil fuel would be used. We would also improve the health of the community, because fewer old people would contract serious diseases and die from cold-related illness. Those measures would result in a saving for the Exchequer, because less money would be spent on treating the ill and less would be wasted on social security payments to provide fuel.
The Committee supports strongly the recommendation to increase the levy to £5, especially as it learnt that the average levy would be £5 a household. The home occupied by Dr McDonnell, the hon Member for South Belfast, a man of numerous incomes, would therefore sustain a much higher levy than the home of a working-class person in east Belfast. The richer members of society will pay a much higher proportion of the levy than poorer people. The Committee also discovered that, as the levy is also taken from industrial and commercial users, it is not spread over 600,000 domestic consumers; it is spread over the entire community. In some instances, therefore, the levy could be as little as 75p a year for households that use little energy. If that is the case, it is a small price to pay to alleviate the scourge of fuel poverty in the Province, especially among the elderly. One of the main obstacles to the increase of the levy was that many people felt that £5 a household was too much. That is not the case, and the fuel poor are not paying the lion’s share. Therefore, the Minister’s response was positive.
I am also glad that he left the door open on Orimulsion. There is no getting away from it: Orimulsion has been a controversial fuel in some parts of the world. Work on the energy inquiry led to one of the most beneficial and productive visits that any Assembly Committee has ever made; it was to the Orimulsion-fired power stations in Denmark. I was not part of the delegation because I had been there previously, but I can verify the Committee’s findings on the efficiency and the high environmental standards of that plant in Zealand.
Indeed, on my visit, we quizzed the representatives of green organisations. I do not mean the SDLP but groups such as Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, and so on and their equivalents in Denmark. Having investigated emissions from that plant and having examined the programme that was established to deal with spillage, those groups were extremely happy with the work going on at the plant, and they gave it their seal of approval. If Kilroot were converted to dual-fired Orimulsion and oil burning, it could go a long way to bridging the gap between generation costs in this part of the UK and in England, Scotland and Wales.
I am glad that the Minister kept the door open to the Committee’s recommendation, and indeed, this is perhaps the one issue over which the Committee almost came to blows. From memory, the only two issues on which it disagreed were the name of Londonderry and whether the use of Orimulsion should go ahead at Kilroot. Both engendered a great deal of heat and required much energy, but they were both resolved.
The triple lock offered by the Committee gives the Minister a way forward to deal with this difficult issue — and there is no getting away from it, it is a complex matter — but it also ensures that the highest possible environmental standards will apply.
First, the Committee said that the use of Orimulsion should be subject to a planning application, which is, of course, only right. That planning application would be the subject of an inquiry or a similar mechanism that would allow the public to air their views. Secondly, the strictest of environmental impact assessments should be carried out in public, which will enable the public to see exactly what measurements are taken, what statistics are used and how the consultants arrive at their conclusions on the environmental issues.
Particulates and spillage are the two remaining unresolved, yet crucial, issues. There is no doubt that the conversion to Orimulsion burning will lead to a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from Kilroot. Sulphur emissions, when combined with flue-gas desulphurisation plant, will fall appreciably. Therefore, we have a win-win situation as far as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulphur (SOx), as they are called, and emission gases are concerned. However, questions remain about the fine particulate matter, cadmium and vanadium, as well as about the other particulates that can cause some respiratory problems. With flue-gas desulphurisation and electrostatic precipitation it is possible to eliminate the majority of those particulates from the atmosphere. However, there are remaining concerns about that, and the environmental impact assessment must examine it in detail.
More crucially perhaps, although only 11 or 12 tankers a year are likely to come to Kilroot from Venezuela, we must ask what would happen if any of those were to sink in Belfast harbour or along the coast of Northern Ireland. The environmental impact assessment must examine in detail any contingency plans to deal with that should it ever occur. Therefore, the second lock is the environmental impact analysis.
Thirdly, the Assembly should make any decision on the production of power, because this is an important regional issue that, given those three provisos, should be taken seriously. In the response to the report, the door has been left open for that proposal. I came to the proposed use of Orimulsion with a cynical and jaundiced viewpoint. My impression was that Orimulsion was the last thing we needed in Northern Ireland. However, when I considered the facts, the use of Orimulsion elsewhere and read the literature, I concluded that there was merit in considering the proposal.
Dr McDonnell raised the issue of the lack of legislation to provide a low-cost borrowing mechanism to reduce the real cost to the consumer of the capital tied up in the power industry. A simple piece of primary legislation is needed, which some believe could be included in the energy Bill. It could be used to buy out the Ballylumford long-term generator contract.
The Committee is examining the energy Bill, and some members are minded to suggest an amendment to allow that provision to be included, not as a mandatory provision but as enabling legislation that would allow a proposal to be considered. The Minister would not be compelled to do anything. It would be a question of "may" rather than "shall". At least the provision would be there if a realistic proposal were put forward.
As Dr McDonnell stated, in pure numerical terms the savings are small, one suggestion being that the figure would be between £1 million and £1·2 million. However, that saving, combined with tackling the long-term generator contracts, and perhaps moving to the use of Orimulsion, would go a long way to reducing the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. If nothing else is achieved during the Minister’s short term of office, a series of steps would have been set in motion to bridge that gap and the Minister would have made a significant achievement for Northern Ireland. If the Assembly is to mean anything to the people of Northern Ireland, something has to be done on this crucial issue.
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is considering industrial derating, and some difficult decisions will have to be taken. Industrial derating was introduced because of the significant difference in electricity prices for industry in Northern Ireland. Many witnesses appearing before the Committee said that the abolition of industrial derating could not be justified until the problem of high electricity costs was addressed. There is much merit in that argument. That does not presuppose one or other decision on the matter, but the two elements are linked.
The energy issue is extraordinarily complex, and no one will pretend otherwise. However, the Committee’s report and the Minister’s response were a step in the right direction and, if we go forward together, many positive changes will be put in place for the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcome most of the response and understand the reasons for saying "no" and "perhaps". No matter how tactful those responses are, I understand that those decisions have to be made.
We will get a second bite at the cherry when we debate the energy Bill, and these issues will reappear many times. As far as the Assembly is concerned, the book on energy is far from closed.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Before I make my contribution to the debate, I send my congratulations to the Armagh team and the Derry minor team. I am being very parochial in relation to Armagh. It is disappointing that the erroneous —

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you; that issue has been covered.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I will not discuss all of the recommendations, as the report was substantial, and the response was very detailed. This is part of the continuing debate on energy, and I look forward to further discussion on the matter.
Recommendation 2 deals with the consumer bond. In addition to Orimulsion, this issue exercised the members of the Committee a great deal. There is growing recognition that bonds could be an effective way of reducing prices. The matter certainly requires full public debate and consultation. It appears that people are increasingly coming around to the idea that bonds are a low-cost borrowing mechanism for energy. However, the proposal needs detailed examination, debate and consultation.
Recommendation 9 deals with eradicating fuel poverty. The revised framework for the energy efficiency levy must ensure openness and transparency with regard to how money is spent and the extent to which people are lifted out of fuel poverty. The eradication of fuel poverty must be considered from the inception of any scheme or project funded by the energy efficiency levy. The evaluation of the warm homes scheme will provide some valuable information on the levy contribution. We need a comprehensive, resource-based evaluation of the energy efficiency levy, and this should be formalised and implemented as quickly as possible.
Recommendation 10 concerns the establishment of a task force on fuel poverty. Although a fuel poverty strategy is very welcome, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment called for the task force in order to inject some political momentum into the situation. I would like to see that established as quickly as possible. The Assembly has demonstrated that there is cross-party support for tackling fuel poverty, but that needs to be harnessed and driven forward. The eradication of fuel poverty in the North of Ireland within 10 years would be a testament to the Assembly’s work.
Recommendation 11 seeks greater transparency with regard to the use of the energy efficiency levy. For example, how does Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) select projects to fund? What criteria are used? Are some organisations refused funding, and, if so, what happens to them? I would welcome clarity and openness on these matters. A panel of independent assessors could help NIE to assess projects.
Recommendation 24, which deals with a renewable energy target, has already been mentioned. I would like to see a more vigorous response from the Department on the promotion of renewable energy. The Committee set a target of 15% of all electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010. That is not impossible, and it would help to drive a more vigorous project forward. I look forward to the implementation of the strategy and to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s plans to promote renewable energy.
Recommendation 38 deals with the establishment of a renewable energy agency. I would like to see that done as soon as possible, in line with the Committee’s recommendation.
With regard to recommendation 45, the consultation on the abolition of the Government royalty tax is to be welcomed. However, all parties recognise the need for an all-Ireland energy market. One of the key issues —

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon Member to mislead the Assembly? The recommendation refers to an all-island energy market, not an all-Ireland one. That is an important distinction, so what is being said is slightly misleading.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for guiding the Assembly in that way.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Words are certainly important, but my preference is to use the term "all-Ireland energy market".
The promotion of an all-Ireland energy market should benefit consumers as well as businesses, so consumer issues should be a key consideration. I broadly welcome the Department’s response. The ongoing debate is healthy and frank, and I welcome that. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the limited time remaining, I must ask Members who still wish to speak in the debate to restrict their contributions to five minutes.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am not a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, but energy issues are so important that we should all take an interest in them.
A key issue in the report and the Minister’s response is that of relative energy charges, particularly in Great Britain and the rest of the European Union. Along with Dr McDonnell and Mr Wells, I argue that consideration should be given to permissive legislation for so-called low-cost borrowing mechanisms. Several billion pounds worth of capital is tied up in the energy industry, so a relatively small reduction in interest charges on loans — even by 0·1% — could lead to tens of millions of pounds worth of savings for customers.
Primary legislation — for example, the forthcoming energy Bill — is needed to achieve that laudable objective. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, through the regulator, could commit consumers to repay on loans. Given that there are approximately 600,000 electricity users in the Province, the lending institutions such as the banks would view that as better security, given the current risk, albeit unlikely, of Northern Ireland Electricity’s bankruptcy. Consequently, consumers could make savings, as the loan repayment would be at a lower interest rate. I understand that, in principle, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses support such permissive legislation.
It might be argued that the systems operator could levy charges on customers within the framework of existing legislation. However, that would not be enough to satisfy the lending institutions. They need assurance, in the form of primary legislation, that consumers would ultimately repay loans. I commend the report and the ministerial response. However, we need to act now to lower electricity prices through, for example, permissive legislation to provide for a low-cost borrowing mechanism.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s response, which, for the large part, was positive. Most of the 45 recommendations fall within his remit.
Recommendation 14 relates to the Coolkeeragh development. As regards its support and implementation, all the necessary statutory consent for the construction of a combined cycle gas turbine station has been granted. The projected commissioning date for the project is autumn 2004.
On 12 February 2002, the regulator granted a gas conveyance licence to Bord Gáis Éireann for the construction of a gas pipeline to supply the new generation station and downstream markets along the route of the pipeline.
The new power station will act as an anchor customer for the new natural gas pipeline to the North and northwest. Over 80,000 new domestic gas connections, including the city of Derry, Limavady, Ballymena, Antrim and Letterkenny, could be made possible in the years after the construction of the gas pipeline, facilitated by the power station.
Developing the power plant at Coolkeeragh will enhance economic activity in the north-west. The development of the new power station represents an inward investment of £150 million in the region, bringing jobs and other benefits. It will provide 600 jobs at the peak of the construction phase, and there will be 40 secure jobs in running the station when it has been built. The local economy is set to benefit significantly from the power plant development at Coolkeeragh. To facilitate local companies being given the opportunity to supply products and service to the main contractor, a unique supplier model initiative supported by Invest Northern Ireland and delivered by North West Marketing has been developed.
I support the report but, as I have a little time left, I would also like to commend recommendation 9 on eradicating fuel poverty. The energy efficiency levy is to be increased to £5 per customer. I also commend recommendation 10 on the setting up of the task force on fuel poverty. The Department for Social Development is already advancing the fuel poverty strategy. Recommendation 15 relates to the climate change levy, which is a reserved matter. We already have a derogation for five years, and I appreciate the Minister’s assurance that he will seek a 10-year derogation.
I welcome very much recommendation 22 on waste minimalisation and the Minister’s positive response to it. Recommendations 39 and 40 deal with gas to the north-west and the postalisation of costs. The fact that costs will be evenly distributed to all gas consumers must be welcomed. I agree with Dr Birnie, Mr Wells, Dr O’Hagan and my Colleague, Dr McDonnell, who spoke in favour of recommendation 45 — its implementation would undoubtedly benefit all in the electricity market.

Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful to the Committee for the motion, which will help to keep the extremely important question of energy high on the Assembly’s agenda. I have listened carefully to a very positive debate on energy, although I share Mr Wells’s disappointment that we did not attract more Members. This issue affects every household and business in the Province, so it should be high on the agenda. I will attempt to cover as many of the issues that were raised as possible.
The Committee Chairperson and many other Members spoke about renewable energy. I want to make it clear that the target has not yet been set. However, it will be set in the energy strategy, which will be published later in the year. I understand why the Committee feels strongly that we should have set a higher target, but Members are omitting one issue — most potential renewables will come from wind power. Mr Armstrong and others raised questions about biomass, anaerobic digesters and other forms of renewable energy. All have their place. However, if we are to reach a significant target of 10% or 15%, 95% of it will come from wind. That is the reality. We must also remember the huge cost involved.
A figure of 15% would cost the consumer a further £40 million. That excludes the cost of upgrading the network to distribute that energy, and that could be as much again. Wind energy generators are usually located in isolated areas, and the existing network for wind energy is not equipped to deal with intermittent sources of energy supply and would have to be radically upgraded and changed at a huge cost to the consumer. Members must understand that there is a double cost involved: it may be more expensive to produce, and the high distribution costs must also be taken into account.
My Department is committed to renewable energy. Mr Armstrong and other Members raised issues such as anaerobic digesters, and I am working closely with my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to encourage such matters. However, it is not easy to set such a target. In any event, there is no point in setting a target that is not achievable, and I hope that can be avoided. Nevertheless, I take Members’ points very seriously, and I know how sincerely held their views are on the subject.
Virtually every Member referred to fuel poverty. The figure of 170,000 people below the fuel poverty line is, in this day and age, a disgrace. However, that is primarily a matter for my Colleague, the Minister for Social Development, and I will draw his attention to the points raised. I have had experience of fuel poverty in my constituency. The staggering fact is that even though we were offering, through the fuel poverty pilot scheme, to convert and insulate properties, to provide modern, efficient gas boilers and to give other advice, an enormous number of people did not apply for it. I found that disturbing. Home helps have to light fires for people who cannot manage solid fuel, and, even though the scheme was available in certain areas and people could get new equipment, homes insulated and free advice, there was still an insufficient number of applicants. That is shocking.

Mr Jim Wells: There were two schemes, one in the Beechmount area of west Belfast and one in Willowfield in the Minister’s constituency. The Beechmount scheme was incredibly successful with a very high take-up, but the Willowfield scheme was much less successful. However, that had more to do with the level of community organisation in the two areas rather than the attractiveness of the scheme.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Sir Reg Empey: I accept that to a point. Nevertheless, even though significant efforts were made to draw the scheme to the attention of people in the area, I was disappointed with the take-up. I accept that we must all do more at community level. However, almost every Member has made the point about fuel poverty, and I will draw it to the attention of my Colleague.
Significant bids are being made in the Budget. The Minister for Social Development is bidding for substantial resources from the Northern Ireland block grant to back the increase in the OFREG levy. There is a real chance of making a significant difference on that.
The Chairperson referred to recommendation 27 on local renewable energy plans and recommendation 28 on planning and building control bodies. Again, some of those matters are the concern of the Department of the Environment, and I will draw Mr Nesbitt’s attention to them as many Members found them significant.
Mr Neeson, Dr Birnie, Dr McDonnell and other Members raised the issue of the bonds. I am aware of the problem, and I am looking at it closely. A range of issues must be considered, including tax and state aid issues. However, Members have made it clear that they intend to raise the matter during the passage of the Bill. As the Executive approved the Bill at their meeting last week, we hope, with your permission, Mr Speaker, to introduce it this month. It will then move to Committee Stage, when Members will be able to discuss its provisions at some length — we shall see where that leads us.
Mr Neeson and other Members also referred to the high cost of electricity. I have now had two meetings with Sir George Quigley, one the week before last and one some months ago. I am acutely aware of all the major issues, and I assure the Member that not a week goes by without our trying to address them in the Department. They are very difficult and complex, and we shall continue to work at them, for each half point that we can shave off the cost is of advantage to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Neeson also referred to diversification; I am aware of the percentage of our electricity that we shall eventually produce with gas when Coolkeeragh comes on-stream and when the new combined cycle gas turbine starts to work. Of course, that will be a much more efficient form of generation; we shall use less gas at Ballylumford when the new power station opens than we use with the present facilities because of increased efficiency. Coolkeeragh, as Mrs Courtney is well aware, is a state-of-the-art, highly efficient combined cycle gas turbine. I am aware of Mr Neeson’s point, but at least now we have the interconnector. There is also interconnection with the Republic, so we are not as isolated as we used to be, and that is of significant satisfaction to us.
Dr McDonnell spoke about the all-island market. Of course, a population of five million is a small market for energy, and we all know that. That is why interconnection, both North/South and east-west, gives us a platform upon which we can play more effectively. We are working very closely with the regulators both North and South, who meet monthly. The two Departments have a high-level working group, and we had a report in 2001. These reports are accessible on our Department’s web site, and one can see there what we are doing. The market is opening up because of the interconnection with Great Britain.
That brings us neatly to the nuclear option to which Mr Wells referred. He used some cricketing analogies, and at one stage he was in danger of putting us in some doubt about how he ever got married; but someone must have said "Yes" to him at some stage. We have an interconnection with Great Britain, and the electricity that flows through that interconnector can come from various sources, including the south of Scotland, which has access to nuclear plants.
I do not favour any such plants being built here, but Sellafield is of environmental importance to all of us, quite apart from the generation of electricity. There can be no guarantee of the source from which electricity comes when it passes through the interconnector; it is not possible to identify that.
Mr Wells also raised the question of Orimulsion. As he says, we are keeping an open mind, but the Member should not forget the significant environmental issues with that fuel. It sinks when it enters water, and I am satisfied that he has no desire to tarmac the bottom of Belfast Lough. We should bear in mind that there is only one source of supply in a very unstable part of the world — there was an attempted coup d’état there some months ago, and we must all take account of that.
5.45pm
However, I know that he and other Committee members were impressed by their visit to Denmark. We shall examine any proposal that comes to us. Apart from the environmental issues, the change in the generating regime will require the consent of the Department. There are other options, such as coal, and a range of issues has been designed to reduce costs. We must take a view based on our regulatory position.
The debate has shown that the Committee has taken a consistent interest; it has done more work on energy than on any other heading in the portfolio. That is important, because the issue affects what is in people’s pockets and has an impact on our industrial competitiveness, which is a key area in which the Committee and the Department are engaged.
Together we are involved in evolving policy. I have been able to take on board several recommendations, and when the energy Bill goes to the Committee for consideration we shall examine the consumer issues, which Dr O’Hagan mentioned, and postalisation, which is a huge matter for all of us.
I know that Mr Neeson has been angered by the reactions that we received from some quarters. However, we can post a letter anywhere in the Province for the same price. Every unit of electricity is sold to consumers at the same price, wherever they are. The principle of postalisation is already established. Would it be fair to charge a consumer in south Fermanagh the real cost of electricity that is produced in Larne and transmitted from there? It would clearly cost more than it would for a consumer in Carrickfergus. It would be insane to go down that road. No part of the Province, especially the rural areas, could hope to survive under that sort of regime.
I earnestly hope that the Committee and the House will support the Bill’s postalisation element, because that is the only way to deliver what is, in cross-border terms, the largest single project that we have undertaken together since partition. I would like to think that that project could be delivered to benefit thousands of people in Northern Ireland who were denied access to fuel. We used to be the only region in western Europe with no gas supply to its main towns. I hope that we shall have support. I look forward to working with the Committee as the Bill proceeds, and I shall be keenly interested in the Committee’s responses and suggestions.

Mr Pat Doherty: I wish to thank, a Cheann Comhairle, all my Colleagues on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for making a thoughtful contribution to the debate. Those contributions represented our consensus on three different levels: a general consensus on the original 45 recommendations; a general consensus that we would broadly welcome the Minister’s initial response; and a consensus that the more innovative recommendations that have been refuted should be pursued. I would also like to thank Esmond Birnie, who was the only non-member of the Committee to speak, for his usual thought-provoking words.
I shall deal with the Minister’s points in some detail later on, but his general contribution was very solid and recognised the work in which the Committee has been involved. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee mentioned bonds, which is an issue with which we are still struggling at times, because a huge amount of money is involved.
The Committee has yet to conclude its views on bonds, but it was right that Mr Neeson should highlight that. Mr Neeson welcomed the work being done on the natural gas pipeline from South to North and the north-west, and he made some historical references to various all-party delegations that tried to bring it all about. He also made a clear reference to the need for postalisation and the work done by the Committee in dealing with the energy Bill.
Mr Armstrong mentioned the benefits of turning waste into energy, which the Committee saw on its visit to Denmark. He also stressed the need for cheaper electricity and energy, and that was what helped the Committee initially to focus on energy.
Every Member who spoke mentioned fuel poverty. Biogas is another notable source of renewables, and the energy savings that can be made by properly implementing building regulations were also mentioned.
Dr McDonnell spoke of the need for Members to debate energy constantly, such is its importance — particularly the cost of electricity and how to tackle it. He also referred to the ongoing discussions on bonds and their implications, and he had clear views on fuel poverty. There are 170,000 households in Northern Ireland living in fuel poverty. Members spoke of the levy paid by each customer, and Mr Wells made detailed reference to how well spread the levy could be if Dr McDonnell paid a bit more than the rest of us. Given the number of people and the enormity of the suffering involved, a £5 levy per customer per annum is very little to ask, and it would eradicate fuel poverty in five years.
The Assembly, the Committees and the Executive have been involved in many enormous projects that take a lot of strategic planning, time and money. However, the report states that another £1 million would wipe out fuel poverty in five years. That can be achieved; the money can be found. If the Exchequer will not give it, the Executive can surely find it.
Dr McDonnell also mentioned renewable energy, the all-island market and the Moyle interconnector which links us up not only with Britain but with the wider EU, bringing about security of supply and the potential for reducing costs. He also referred to the privatisation of power stations; that subject spills over into the issue of bonds.
Mr Wells was concerned about the small turnout for the debate, but I think he answered his own question when he said that the energy issue is so complex that very few understand it. It has taken the Committee over a year to cover all the associated issues. The Committee jokes about Mr Neeson promising an easy inquiry that would last six weeks after completion of the economic inquiry. However, we are still at it. We may not be experts, but we are much more knowledgeable now than when we started.
Mr Wells "praised" the steady and positive response from the Minister and the Department, and referred to the Minister’s straight bat response. He also said that the Minister should have said that nuclear power would be used in Northern Ireland over his dead body.
Mr Wells elaborated on fuel poverty. He dealt in huge detail with Orimulsion and said that the debate on the matter was ongoing. He also talked about the triple-lock mechanism, and the Minister dealt with those concerns in his response. The Committee had a huge debate on that, but the door has been left open, as we have not yet made a decision on it. Mr Wells also discussed the buying out of electricity contracts, which is tied to the issue of bonds. He talked about industrial derating, which will come before the House soon, and the fact that the Committee was considering how it would deal with the matter.
Dr O’Hagan, after praising the Armagh team for its fine victory, talked about the Minister’s detailed response to the Committee’s report. She dwelt on the issue of consumer bonds and the need for a full debate. She elaborated on fuel poverty, the energy efficiency levy and the Committee’s target of generating 15% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Dr O’Hagan also mentioned recommendation 38 on the establishment of a renewable energy agency and recommendation 45, which would enable companies to trade in a fair and equitable all-island energy market. She also welcomed the Department’s response to the Committee’s proposals.
Dr Birnie talked about the low-cost borrowing mechanisms that are available and the need to conclude the debate on that issue.
Mrs Courtney expressed support for the Coolkeeragh project, about which the Committee has felt strongly since the beginning. She also spoke about the need for a fuel poverty task force.
I have lost my notes on the Minister’s detailed response. He explained why it was difficult to push the target from 10% to 15%, outlining the cost factors, on which the Committee will reflect. The Committee was trying to put Northern Ireland at the cutting edge with renewable resources rather than leave it behind in the game with regard to European Directives and the activities of other countries.
I understand that aspects of fuel poverty related to other Ministries, but the issue could be resolved by means of a collective, all-embracing, cross-cutting response. Bonds and the cost-saving aspects of diversification were discussed. That reminded us that even an all-island market would be small and that energy could flow in more than one direction, for example, from an electricity interconnector linking us to Britain and the EU.
Mr Wells may have been told that nuclear plants were an option, but the Minister rejected that possibility. However, he highlighted the fact that he could not determine from which source energy would be manufactured. The Minister responded to the question of Orimulsion, and it will feed into the Committee’s thorough deliberations. We have had a lively debate on energy, and no doubt we shall return to the issue.

Mr Speaker: Order. Just in case the Member finds his notes, I draw his attention to the fact that only three minutes remain.

Mr Pat Doherty: Two minutes will suffice.
The Minister recognised the Committee’s work, for which I thank him, and also how the Committee worked with the Department. It was an example of the right way for a Committee and Department to work together. The Committee did its best in that regard, because the issue is so serious. I was glad that the Minister said that the principle of postalisation has long been established.
The debate has been useful, although, as Jim Wells said, it was a pity that more Members were not present. However, as we continue to debate and promote the issues, and especially as the Committee scrutinises the draft Bill, everything will be dealt with.
6.00pm
I thank the Members and you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me a little extra time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the response of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Committee’s Report on Energy (03/01R).
Adjourned at 6.01 pm.